Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ADELPHI ESTATE BILL

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Children Act

Mr. David Porter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he is making in the implementation of the Children Act 1989.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Our major programme of regulations, guidance and training continues to make good progress. We hope to launch the bulk of the guidance early in the new year.

Mr. Porter: Will my hon. Friend tell the House a little more about her Department's plans for the Act's training support programme?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am able to announce a substantial increase in the amount of money for training in social services generally. The training programme for the implementation of the Children Act is making good headway. I am pleased to be able to inform my hon. Friend that we are arranging training through the National Children's Bureau for those involved in the national health service. The first training event took place in East Anglia only last week. I hope that it will soon be available to NHS workers in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Bell: I am always glad to hear from the Minister that there are training programmes. However, as £3,000 million of Government money is to be used to offset the effects of the poll tax, can she assure the House that sufficient resources will be available fully to implement the Children Act in October 1991?

Mrs. Bottomley: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There has been a very good settlement for local authority personal social services this year which amounts to a 23·4 per cent. increase on last year's standard spending assessment. In addition, the training resources are

ring-fenced. They go out in the form of specific grants for child care and for the implementation of the Children Act. We shall implement the Children Act in 327 days' time.

Mr. Devlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that I heard with some concern from a group of my constituents that the consultation documents sent out by her Department on the running of day nurseries were received in Cleveland only on the day that they were due to be responded to? Will my hon. Friend look into that and, if necessary, extend the time?

Mrs. Bottomley: I shall certainly look carefully at my hon. Friend's point. Only last month I attended a seminar in Newcastle at which local authorities, voluntary organisations and the private sector discussed precisely that guidance—that they should have inspected provision for child minders in play groups within three months and for day nurseries within six months. New guidance is important. We are funding the National Children's Bureau to produce material on that part of the Act. I certainly assure my hon. Friend that I shall look into the matter as it affects his part of the country.

Elderly (Day Care)

Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the number of day care places per 1,000 of the elderly and very elderly population, by individual local authorities.

The Parliamentary.Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): This information was published last July. A copy was placed in the Library.

Mr. Thompson: In view of that almost inadequate reply, will the Minister examine the responses from Labour-controlled county and shire councils and those from Tory-controlled county and shire councils? He will find that Labour-controlled county councils provide a far better service for the elderly. Does he understand that the Royal College of Nursing has expressed concern about inadequate transport arrangements and respite care, as well as the inadequacy of provision for those who live in rural areas?

Mr. Dorrell: I did not give every figure, because the hon. Gentleman asked for a figure for every local authority in England and Wales which would have taken some time to read to the House. He asked whether I am aware of the development of the service. He may know that the total number of day care places has risen by nearly 30 per cent. in 12 years and that the resources available to the Northumberland social services departments has risen by 55 per cent. in real terms in 12 years. The way that those resources are used is a matter for social services departments.

Mr. Steen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important thing is to ensure that old people can get about rather than be in day care? Is my hon. Friend aware that, unfortunately, elderly people in south Devon are hobbling about because the chiropody service has been cut and fewer sessions are available? Will my hon. Friend have a word with the chairman of the area health authority and say that before it cuts services at the sharp end, it should have a look at its own bureaucracy?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of chiropody services. They constitute an important part of proper community care. The exact prioritisation in an area is a matter for the health authority.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the Minister accept that as a result of the Government's postponement of their community care programme the number of day care places in the community may be declining? Is he aware that in Birkenhead, for example, the Vincent Harkness day care centre will be closing? What message would the Minister like me to take home to my constituents who may have only one choice—going into residential care—as a result of the Government's postponement of their plans?

Mr. Dorrell: I have already said that we recognise the importance of day care places and welcome the fact that over the past 12 years there has been an increase of 30 per cent. in their availability. They are a vital part of any proper community care policy. I do not accept that the phased introduction of community care need have a direct impact on the availability of places or on the way in which social services departments continue to use resources already at their disposal.

Neurosciences

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what percentage the cost of transferring neurosciences from Shooter's Hill to Denmark Hill has risen since the decision was taken; and what proportion of the South East Thames regional annual capital budget this represents.

Mr. Dorrell: Nineteen per cent, Sir. The costs are borne over a period of time and not solely by the regional health authority.

Mr. Bottomley: Would I be right in saying that the capital budget for South East Thames is between £50 million and £60 million and that the cost of moving neurosciences four miles is between £50 million and £60 million? There are already six or seven neuroscience units in the inner London area and people in my constituency and further out would prefer to have services available to them. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, or shall I take up this matter with the chairman of South East Thames regional health authority before going to independent auditors?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend should take up any discontent with the chairman of the regional health authority. He should be aware that the reasoning for the concentration of neurosciences on the Maudsley site was that it was a more efficient use of clinical resources and involved lower cost. I suspect that neither of those considerations will have changed.

Hospital Beds

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to avert the closure of hospital beds throughout the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): It is for health authorities to determine the mix of health provision—including the number of hospital beds—which best meets the needs of their local population

using the increased resources which the Government have made available to them. Next year will see the largest-ever increase in NHS funding, enabling the health service to continue to treat more people and expand its services.

Mr. Illsley: The Secretary of State is no doubt aware of the recent report of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts which forecast some 3,500 bed closures between now and next April. He is probably also aware that all hospital consultants in Sheffield have been told not to prescribe on to general practitioners' budgets in order to save money. Is not it a fact that the Government are passing the buck to health authorities, which are no longer accountable, and are blaming them for the cuts when the Government are simply not providing adequate funding for health authorities to carry out their duties?

Mr. Waldegrave: No, Sir, I do not accept that. As the figures show, the number of people treated goes on increasing from year to year. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the number of day care surgery cases has doubled since 1979 for medical reasons. That is largely why the beds continue to close.

Dame Jill Knight: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being appointed to his new position? When considering bed and ward closures, does he recognise that many of us believe that what is important is the treatment of patients, not furniture? Will he assure the House that when wards close and beds are moved, patients who need care will be taken care of elsewhere?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome. The figures support what she says. The national health service, thanks to its employees, who do so well for us, continues to treat more patients every year, including in my hon. Friend's area.

Mr. Kennedy: Does not the Secretary of State realise that the report of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, and the survey carried out by The Independent the day before, showed clearly that, in anticipation of next year's managerial structural changes, health authorities were being forced to close beds? It is quite false for him to say that the key indicator is the number of patients being treated, because all too often health authorities have moved patients from hospital care, sooner than normal, back into the community. Many of them have had to be re-admitted because they did not have sufficient hospital convalescence following surgical treatment. Should not we examine that figure, rather than the platitudes that the Secretary of State is offering?

Mr. Waldegrave: I read the surveys with care. It is worth noting that the report of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts to which the hon. Gentleman referred showed, by any inflation indicator, a real increase in resources available for the health service this year. That contradicts what Opposition Members have often said. The medical advice is against the hon. Gentleman. Before we took office the trend was already to keep people in hospital for less time. That is medically right.

Mr. Norris: I join in welcoming my right hon. Friend to his new position and express my pleasure that having me as his Parliamentary Private Secretary did not impede his career for too long—or at least I did not damage him as much as I did some of my other right hon. Friends. The


reality of bed closures is often the opposite of that suggested by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley). Beds have been closed in my health district and much public distress has been expressed as a result. But those bed closures are being announced now to achieve required budget savings by next April. The main reason is not a shortage of funds from the Department of Health but the inadequacies of the management of individual health districts. More health districts should address themselves to the subject.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind words. It is true that he has lost one or two Secretaries of State along the way, but he and I had a better relationship. What he says is perfectly true. It would be wrong for well-managed areas—Barnsley health district is managing well within its resources and has closed no beds for financial reasons—to be made to transfer resources to areas that may have tackled their problems with less resolution.

Mr. Robin Cook: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment to the Cabinet and share the hope that he will still be in it after 6.30 pm? While he is still with us, will he try to face the realities? Has no one told him that some hospitals will not carry out any routine surgery for the rest of the financial year? Has no one told him that the NAHAT survey found that only 2 per cent. of closures were planned rationalisations and that 98 per cent. were emergency closures to balance the books in time for next April's changes? As those changes are doing so much harm to the national health service, why does not he take the opportunity of this interregnum to put back the lid on changes which came in with the present Prime Minister and should go with her?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome, although I am not so grateful for the fact that he is playing the old gramophone record which he has been playing for the past two or three years and will continue to play for the next two or three years from the position that he now occupies. Every year the health service goes on treating more people. I shall not deny that in some places in the health service beds are being closed for financial reasons, but it would be wrong for us to say that those who are trying to achieve their planned budget spending should not be encouraged to do so, because that is the basis of a well-managed service.

Mr. Hayes: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new job and I know that he will be a great success. Does he accept that the best way to prevent bed closures is for the money to travel with the patient—which I hope will happen from next April? Does my right hon. Friend accept that he will have to take some tough decisions, particularly in the Thames region where the capital programmes have collapsed? My right hon. Friend must understand that constituencies such as mine, which has the worst waiting lists in the country and where children's wards are being closed, must be assisted if the excellent reforms that will come on stream next year are to mean anything.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. The reforms will help to take the money to where the patients are and will help to reward hospitals that are successful and treat many patients. The present system works in exactly the opposite direction. I am well aware—this is the first thing of which anyone holding my office would be aware—that

there is, as usual, a special London problem which has not been sorted out for decades. We shall have to sort it out before too long.

Health Service Funding

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that adequate resources are available to meet the need for (a) health service provision and (b) community care as a result of demographic changes.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We shall increase resources for the national health service in the United Kingdom by £3·2 billion in 1991–92. At the same time, the standard spending figure for local authorities' personal social services will rise by 23 per cent.

Mr. Michael: Does the hon. Lady recognise that Ministers are continually playing the old record which was left behind by the Secretary of State's predecessor? Since 1982, inflation in the health service has been 49·9 per cent., compared with a less than 35 per cent. increase in the retail prices index. Do the Government recognise that the health service is treading water where it is not drowning, that demographic changes and the increasing numbers of elderly people are flooding over our services and that it is not enough to mouth platitudes? Resources are needed if community care is to be more than merely moving people out of institutions and if it is to mean providing adequate services for carers and those who are cared for in the community. Can we have the resources so that the job can be done?

Mrs. Bottomley: This is the largest ever increase in resources for the national health service—a cash increase of one third over the past three years. I recall that when the Labour party was last in power, long ago, the total cost of the health service was £8 billion. There has been an extra £8 billion in the past three years alone. As for demographic factors, over the past 10 years the number of elderly people has increased by 8·4 per cent. Hon. Gentlemen might like to know that over that period the number of geriatric in-patients increased by 75 per cent.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: rose——[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is an air of excitement this afternoon which I fail to understand.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful for the reception by the House, but I am not on the ballot paper upstairs——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is on the ballot paper here.

Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable for 50 beds to be closed in a relatively new, modern district general hospital in Macclesfield when there are surgeons and consultants waiting to carry out treatment and operations, theatres available for those operations and waiting lists of people wanting operations? The Mersey regional health authority has allocated insufficient resources to Macclesfield, given the growing number of elderly people and the growing population of the area.

Mrs. Bottomley: The enemy of the health service is waste. It is a waste not to have people fully using the skills that they have been trained to deploy. It is a major


challenge to health authorities to live within their resources. We take great pride in the substantial increase in resources that we have provided for the health service, but we do not underestimate the financial and management skills that health authorities need to deploy so that they do not let their work outstrip the resources to meet that work. We need further improvements in that area.

Mr. Rooker: The Minister will agree that the demographic changes make a difficult situation far worse, so it is more important than ever to look at the way in which resources are moved about. How is it possible that Exeter health authority seems to have lost £60 million, which was released by the sale of two psychiatric hospitals at Digby and at Exminster, not £1 of which has gone into community care for the mentally ill? How is it possible that the Midland nerve hospital has closed a psychiatric ward with a staff of 15 who have been replaced by only three staff working in the community? Where have all those resources gone? Local people cannot find the information and they have been told that it is not available locally. We presume, therefore, that the information is available centrally. Can we be told?

Mrs. Bottomley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role. He will know that there is concern about the extent to which provision for the mentally ill has kept up with our wishes and expectations. That is why my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has responsibility for the specific grant for the mentally ill which will commence next April. Next year, £30 million will be spent by local authorities, with the agreement of health authorities, to ensure that there is close collaboration in the provision of services for the mentally ill. Over the past 10 years, there has been almost a doubling in the number of places in homes for the mentally ill. We believe that there is scope for further provision by social services to ensure that they do as well with the mentally ill as, in many cases, they have with the mentally handicapped.

In-patients

Mr. David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of in-patients being treated by the national health service at the present time; and how many were treated in 1979.

Mr. Dorrell: Almost 7·5 million in-patient cases were treated in 1989–90 compared with just over 6 million in 1979. That is a rise of almost 25 per cent.

Mr. Davis: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer because it nails the nonsensical assertion from some Opposition Members, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), about cuts in the health service. It shows that there has been a dramatic increase in the health service provided to the people of the United Kingdom. Will my hon. Friend also nail that lie, for the benefit of my constituents, by telling me the figures for Scunthorpe health authority?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The figures demonstrate that the national health service is growing each year that the Government are in power. I am

pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the number of patients treated in his constituency has risen at a compound rate of 5 per cent. per annum.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that although there has been an increase in the number of in-patients treated, there may have been an even greater demand? Are those in need of in-patient treatment receiving the treatment that they need or are they being turfed out of hospitals before they are ready and being directed towards private health care provision in a way which they would not have been in 1979?

Mr. Dorrell: In 1979, the in-patient waiting lists was 5 per cent. higher than it is now. It simply is not true to say that the shorter time in a hospital bed is a reflection of the fact that peope are being pushed out into the community. It is a reflection of the refinement of medical practice and of less traumatic medicine which means higher-quality patient care.

Mr. Sims: Is not it a fact that the improvement in medical techniques to which my hon. Friend referred means that many treatments that involved in-patient care in 1979 can now be achieved through out-patient care? Are not the out-patient figures even more relevant to the arguments on this point and on the whole question of hospital beds?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is precisely right. There is also an interim category of day cases—people who would previously have had to stay in hospital, in many cases for several days, and in some cases for several weeks. They are now treated as day cases. The number of day cases treated by the national health service has more than doubled since 1979.

Dental Treatment

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken by his Department to ensure that all areas have access to national health service dental treatment.

Mr. Dorrell: The Department operates a scheme offering financial incentives to dentists to set up in shortage areas.

Mr. Campbell: Will the Minister guarantee the people of the north-east of England a dental service within the health service or are we seeing another way of privatising the dental service?

Mr. Dorrell: Yes, Sir and no, Sir.

Mr. Hill: Is my hon. Friend aware that many dentists are wrestling with their consciences while considering whether they should go for more private practice than NHS practice? My dentist is one of those who finds himself in that predicament. There must be more inducement for dentists to stay with the NHS than there has been previously. They are very inclined to go private.

Mr. Dorrell: I read the same newspaper articles as my hon. Friend and I am obviously concerned by them. We have a choice between believing the Daily Mirror or the British Dental Association. The BDA has stated:
the public should have no difficulty in finding an NHS dentist in any part of the country.


That surely is the important assurance that I gave the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that in the north-east of England there is an adequate supply of dentists, and excellent dentists? The thing that is putting off dentists at present is the amount of paperwork that they are having to complete in accordance with their new contracts. Will my hon. Friend consider that? The system needs streamlining urgently.

Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we should always be reviewing the paperwork and bureaucratic requirements of the NHS to ensure that they are at the minimum. We must ensure also that there is a sufficient flow of information to allow management to discharge its tasks effectively.

Ms. Abbott: Is the Minister aware that the terms of the new dental contract make it increasingly uneconomic to practice NHS dentistry in London and that the majority of dentists in London and the south-east voted against the contract for that reason? My constituents are finding increasingly that their dentists are moving over to entirely private work. Is the Minister further aware that many dentists and many other members of the public feel that the Government are trying to introduce the privatisation of the dental service through the back door?

Mr. Dorrell: I repeat not my words but those of the BDA, which stated that
the public should have no difficulty in finding an NHS dentist in any part of the country.
The hon. Lady is an unlikely exponent of the point of view that £30,000 a year is not a decent living wage.

Hospital Trusts

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will visit those hospitals in Liverpool which have made proposals for hospital trust status in order to obtain at first hand the views of the staff.

Mr. Waldegrave: I have no immediate plans to visit the hospitals in Liverpool that have applied for trust status.

Mr. Wareing: How can a Government who claim to believe in democracy ignore the wishes of the Liverpool people, as shown in a recent survey carried out by the Liverpool community health council? It revealed that 88 per cent. of staff in hospitals in Liverpool and over 92 per cent. of the public in Liverpool find the concept of opted-out hospitals entirely alien to their idea of a health service. Might not the Prime Minister, if that is what the right hon. Lady remains after 6.30 pm, try out her new-found belief in referendums by going to the people of Liverpool and carrying out a referendum in that city, where no councillors and no Members of Parliament believe in the Government's extreme right-wing doctrines?

Mr. Waldegrave: It would be absurd to have referenda on management changes within the NHS. It is not surprising that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have managed to scare many people in Liverpool, as others have scared people elsewhere. For example, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), who I think is an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, issued a press handout about hospitals opting out of the NHS. No hospitals are opting out of the NHS.

Mr. Alton: Given the misunderstandings that many have about opting out or trust status, is not there a need for the Secretary of State to go to places such as Liverpool to explain his plans? Many are fearful that if the Liverpool royal hospital in my constituency or the Alder Hey children's hospital, which has an international reputation, were in some way to be separated from the NHS, they would not be available to ordinary people and would not provide them with the care that they have always provided in the past. If there is a misunderstanding, why does not the Secretary of State come to Liverpool to explain in person the proposals to those who will be affected by them?

Mr. Waldegrave: There are 66 applications for trust status and we must approve them or not approve them shortly. It would not be practicable for me to visit all those hospitals before I have to take those decisions. It is important that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) accepts, as I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) accepts, that it is his duty to get rid of the nonsense that has been spread around. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, who is an independent-minded man, will help us to do that.

General Practitioners

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average number of patients and income of general practitioners in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: On 1 October 1989, the latest date for which information is available, the average number of patients on a GP's list in England and Wales was 1,962—14 per cent. fewer than in 1979. The intended average net income for GPs is currently £33,280 and will rise to £34,680 from 1 January 1991.

Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that since the introduction of the new contract and over the past few years, GPs have had fewer patients on their lists and will therefore have more time to treat them? Will he also confirm that as a consequence of the new contract, GPs' incomes will increase, so in no way can it be said that their standard of living has been eroded?

Mr. Waldegrave: I can confirm what my hon. Friend says. I remind the House that many statements were made about the effect of the new GP contract and a lot of words will have to be eaten, particularly by Opposition Front-Bench Members. The figures already coming through show dramatic rises, for example, in the immunisation of children, which I do not think would have been achieved without the contract, which is already working well.

Mr. Kirkwood: How many applications have there been from general practices in England and Wales for budget-holding status? How many of them came from rural areas? When will the Secretary of State make an announcement about those that he will approve?

Mr. Waldegrave: The number is about 350, with a similar number, or rather more, expressing interest for the


future. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the breakdown between rural and urban now, but I shall write to him about that.

Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the effect of the new general practitioner contract on the amount of time spent in consultation with patients.

Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about the new contract for general practitioners.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: A recent survey published in the medical press suggested that 54 per cent. of GPs have spent more time in patient contact since the introduction of the GPs' new contract. In recent months there has been a dramatic reduction in the volume of correspondence received on the GP contract.

Mr. Couchman: When the new contract was negotiated, doctors expressed much concern about targets for cervical cytology and immunisation. Does my hon. Friend have figures to show the percentage and number of doctors who are achieving those targets? Has the number of home visits undertaken by doctors personally rather than through agency services increased since the new contract was agreed?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend rightly highlights the misleading and mischievous statements that were made at the time. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said:
The targets … for screening for cervical cancer—are so heroic, so far beyond the present figure for most practices, that there is a danger that many doctors will simply give up trying."—[Official Report, 25 July 1989; Vol. 157, c. 960.]
That shows, as ever, that the Opposition think so little of people and are the doom-mongers and gloom merchants.
I shall give my hon. Friend the figures that he requested: 54 per cent. of GPs are already hitting the higher target for cytology—the majority are hitting the higher target. A further 35 per cent. are hitting the lower target as well and that is very encouraging. A similar story applies to immunisation. The remuneration on home visits, whereby if a GP carries out his own home visit at night, he receives about £45, but if he uses a deputising service, he receives £15, has meant that GPs are more willing to undertake their own home visits.

Mr. Hague: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the likely reasons for the reduction in correspondence on this subject is that the contract is now a great deal more popular and more widely accepted, not only among GPs but among patients, than it was when it was first proposed? Is not one of the reasons for that that patients have more information about the services that are available to them than they have ever had before? [Interruption.]

Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could we have some quiet? There is a lot of last-minute canvassing on Conservative Benches. These are important Health questions.

Mr. Speaker: I have to say that the noise comes from the hon. Member's side of the House as well—[Interruption.] However, I thank the hon. Member for drawing his point of order to my attention. It gives me the opportunity to say that we should listen to Health questions in silence.

Mrs. Bottomley: The GP contract is a great success, partly because it has been backed by resources. In the part of the world of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), there has been a 20 per cent. increase in practice staff over the past year and a 65 per cent. increase in practice nurses. He will know that in his part of the country the average GP list size has come down from 2,000 to 1,700. Certainly, his point is important. The GP contract means that more information is made available through practice leaflets and the local directory of services. Patients are better informed. They are treated like partners by the GPs. It is a success for the GPs and a success for the patients.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister mentioned cervical cancer a moment ago. Is she aware that the research unit at Hammersmith hospital, which is looking into breast cancer, now faces closure because of the inability to get £150,000 a year to continue its work, when her Department spent £147,000 on hospitality last year? Will not she say that it is a most inappropriate use and misallocation of resources and that she will keep the Hammersmith breast cancer unit open?

Mrs. Bottomley: Clearly, as the first country in the European Community with a national call and recall system both for cervical cytology and for breast cancer, we are determined to reduce the number of avoidable deaths by cancer, particularly cancers affecting women. We have not had an application from the Hammersmith unit. We have been in touch with it to see whether there is any way in which we can assist.

Child Abuse

Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to protect children from abuse and neglect.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We are deeply concerned about all incidents of child abuse and attach a high priority to tackling it. Legislation that clarifies and simplifies the existing child care law is on the statute book. It will be implemented in October 1991.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Does my hon. Friend accept that child abuse is a problem which causes appalling conflicts between local authorities and families—conflicts which are often insoluble? Does she accept the need for up-to-date practice guidance to help with those problems?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend hits exactly the point about child abuse. The new Children Act 1989 ensures that there is proper, paramount consideration of the needs of the child and also recognition of the responsibilities of parents and the role of local authorities. Our guidance document, "Working Together", which was produced after the Cleveland report, clarifies and provides advice for the various agencies in their co-operation together. We shall be updating it in the new year and, in particular, drawing attention to the need to recognise the role, responsibilities and rights of parents.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister please look again at the possibility of the establishment of a national centre for research into the abuse of children and sexual abuse, in particular—[Interruption]—so that perpetrators and victims can be examined in great depth?

Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot hear because of the noise.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister look at that question, which I first raised with the Prime Minister two years ago, so that, for a small amount of money, we can ensure that real progress is made on that important issue?

Mrs. Bottomley: I shall certainly give high priority to the development of services for those who have been abused and, indeed, for abusers. A major training programme is under way. We work in collaboration with a great number of voluntary organisations, for example, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the National Children's Bureau, the National Children's Home and many others. Only recently we identified an additional sum, particularly for the development of services for those who have been the victims of sexual abuse and for the perpetrators of abuse.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that a lot of heartache has been caused to parents, because some of the guidelines contained in "Working Together" are still not being observed either by local authorities or by the professional organisations representing some of the professionals involved in case conferences? When she reviews "Working Together", will she ensure that the new guidance is strictly observed by local authorities and professional organisations?

Mrs. Bottomley: Yes, that is correct. Those involved in child abuse cases should give paramount consideration to the welfare of the child. Many children's lives were lost some years ago because the workers were so busy working with the parents that they almost forgot to focus on the child. The pendulum has now swung the other way and there is concern that parents' interests are not being properly regarded. I can most certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that the new issue of "Working Together" will properly identify the on-going responsibility of parents.

Residential Care

Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that persons in residential care are enabled to have individual rooms if they so desire.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: That is a matter for local authorities. To assist local authorities, we have issued guidance that makes it clear that residents should have the choice of single rooms wherever that is preferred and practicable.

Mr. Grant: Is the Minister aware that thousands of residents in care homes have to share a room and that in some cases there are four or five people to a room? How would she like to have to share a room in her old age with four or five other people? What is she going to do about it? Is she aware of the two major reports that have been published, the Wagner report and the Home Life report, which both state that it is highly desirable that elderly people should have individual rooms? Is she further aware of the representations that have been made by organisations such as the Royal College of Nursing, which

said that in old age, residents of such homes need choice, dignity and to be cared for properly? What will the Minister do about all this?

Mrs. Bottomley: It is my intention and hope to share my room with one person in my old age, but perhaps with no more. We are intent on improving standards in residential care homes. We have a training initiative to improve the quality of care. New inspection units were established by local authorities this April and it will be important that local authorities meet the standards that they have been setting for the private sector for many years. Our community care plans should ensure that proper support is provided in the community as well as residential support being provided, where appropriate, for those who need it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Speaker: Questions to the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".]—Order. No. 1, Mr. McAvoy.

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 November.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Mr. Speaker —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the Lord President has been asked to reply.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, in Paris.

Mr. McAvoy: Does the Leader of the House accept that with the Tory party split from top to bottom in an orgy of bitterness, animosity and hatred, it is proving that it is patently unfit to govern? Bearing in mind the present Prime Minister's new-found enthusiasm for referendums, will the Leader of the House urge him to resign and call the only referendum that matters—a general election—to give the people an opportunity to elect a Labour Prime Minister?

Mr. MacGregor: We have just had the debate on the Address and the legislative programme in which the Government secured a very large majority of 108. That is a firm rebuttal of the hon. Gentleman's point. We have a full and important legislative programme and we shall be getting on with it, as the House wants us to do. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because when the general election comes and the focus turns to his leader and the Labour party's policies, I have no doubt that the Conservative party will have a fourth considerable victory.

Mr. Jack: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 November.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jack: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the excellent European arms reduction treaty could not have


been achieved under the weak, indecisive and divided policies advocated by the Opposition? Can he further confirm that the defence of the realm remains a key objective of the Government and that the aerospace workers in Lancashire will have a full part to play in that?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says. It was because the Government—under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—and other Governments in the west were resolute about defence and maintained an effective nuclear deterrent that the Soviet Union realised that it could not win militarily. When a Soviet leader arose with the courage and vision of Mr. Gorbachev, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the first to recognise that and to encourage him in the process of reform and disarmament, which was so triumphantly sealed yesterday. That treaty is of major significance for the future of Europe. My hon. Friend is also right to stress the role of British Aerospace. I am sure that it will continue to have an important role.

Mr. Hattersley: rose——

Hon. Members: What is your leader doing?

Mr. Hattersley: I can tell hon. Members exactly what my right hon. Friend is doing—he is enjoying the undivided support of his party.
Will the Leader of the House accept our congratulations on the Government's refusal to provide £10 million to fund the city technology college in the Prime Minister's borough? When shall we have a statement on the Government's general climbdown on CTCs?

Mr. MacGregor: There is no climbdown on city technology colleges. We have a clear programme—15 have been either announced or are well in the pipeline. What is more, the CTCs already in existence are proving not only extremely effective in raising standards in inner-urban areas, but extremely popular with parents. They all have very large waiting lists.

Mr. Hattersley: If there is no general climbdown on CTCs, what significance should we read into the Prime Minister having been picked out for special punishment in that particular? Is not it true that the Government's policy is in shambles in yet another area and that the country now faces all the problems of a lame duck Prime Minister leading a lame duck Government?

Mr. MacGregor: That was a shambles of an attack. Our CTC policy is continuing and the CTCs are proving very popular. As the former Secretary of State for Education and Science, I recently announced consultations on a new CTC—which I believe will be very good—in the Bristol area. In each case, we must consider the obtaining of sufficient funds from sponsors and the matching of sponsors with sites in appropriate inner-urban areas. It is not true that the CTC programme is crumbling.

Mr. Ashby: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 November.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ashby: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the absence of the Leader of the Opposition? Could he

possibly be attending any summit meeting and, if so,
would he be advocating his policies of 1983 or his policies of 1990?

Mr. MacGregor: Not the least of the achievements of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is that the Opposition have changed so many of their policies—for example, on Europe, on the economy and in many other respects. That is a clear sign of the Government's success with our policies during recent years.

Mr. Flannery: I know that the Leader of the House must be worried about matters other than Question Time, but will he address himself to the position from which he was recently removed, that of Secretary of State for Education and Science? Does he realise that the CTCs, which were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), together with the assisted places scheme, are costing more than the £500 million that he recently wrung from the Treasury? Does he accept that both those schemes are an insult to British education? Only a few parents are lucky enough to feel able to support them, while the remainder of education suffers from the siphoning off of public money into private education.

Mr. MacGregor: For a start, the hon. Gentleman's figures are completely wrong. The two programmes to which he referred cost a good deal less than £500 million. I know that he will have noticed the proposals in the autumn statement to increase spending on education next year by more than £3,000 million. That is a clear sign of the priority that we give to education. The CTC programme and the assisted places programme are two of the many means by which we are raising standards and extending parental choice.

Mr. Stern: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 November.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's policy towards Europe has been vindicated by the success of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, held in Paris? Does he further agree that the direction of future policy must lead to greater co-operation across the entire continent of Europe rather than to a retreat into a tight economic unit covering less than half of it?

Mr. MacGregor: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in Paris yesterday
We would hope to see east and central European countries join the Council of Europe. And in the slightly longer term we would also hope to see them join the European Community when they are ready and want to do so".
My hon. Friend is also right to talk about a wider, open Europe. As a former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I believe that the lead that my right hon. Friend gave—[Interruption.] I was pleased to play my part in the reform of the common agricultural policy. The lead that my right hon. Friend gave in trying to get a united European position on the GATT Uruguay round has been most important.

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 November.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Lord President of the Council aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was outside Committee Room 12 this morning at 10 o'clock when he conducted a most authoritative exit poll of a certain contest? Among the first—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may well have been there, but the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) should relate his question to Government responsibilities.

Mr. Nellist: Among the first 200 Tory MPs who emerged, 200 admitted to voting for the Prime Minister and 200 admitted to voting for the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). With all the duplicity and general savagery of the past few days, does the Lord President agree that it would be better to follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and call a general election? Instead of 350 Tory Members of Parliament deciding a political talent contest, 40 million people could pass verdict on the past 11 years of Thatcherism.

Mr. MacGregor: I have already dealt with the general election point. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the fact that, as ever, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) not only gets his facts and dates wrong, but has an extremely vivid imagination.

Mr. Skinner: It was a proper authentic exit poll.

Mr. MacGregor: We shall see.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), as he has reminded me that I have still to vote, which I hope to do in about five minutes.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 November.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that in excess of 7 million people have already registered to buy electricity shares demonstrates the continuing and overwhelming public interest in popular capitalism, as espoused by the Conservative party alone under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? Does he also agree that today's 11 million popular capitalists have everything to fear from the return of an expropriating Labour party?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that one of the many successes of the past 11 years of Conservative rule has been the wider spread not only of share ownership but of property ownership. It has been clear for many years that the wider spread of ownership is not a concept in which the Opposition believe.

Mr. Clelland: Following the earlier remarks of the Leader of the House about Labour party policy, may I ask whether he is aware that at the weekend the Prime Minister accused the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) of pursuing Labour party policy? Could that be why the right hon. Gentleman is so much further ahead in public opinion than the right hon. Lady?

Mr. MacGregor: That was a reference—[Interruption.] If one reads what the Prime Minister said one sees that it was a reference to one or two aspects of economic policy in relation to intervention in industry. If one examines the totality of our policies on the economy, one sees that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) in his remarks was totally in support of the Prime Minister and that in a wide range of other policies there is a great deal of unity on Conservative Benches and a great deal of opposition to the policies being pursued by the Labour party.

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 November.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thurnham: Does the Leader of the House agree that one of the many achievements of the Prime Minister has been to set up the Audit Commission? Does he further agree that it is extraordinary that the Opposition want to abolish it simply because it is exposing massive waste and inefficiency in town halls, with over £1·3 billion of savings already identified?

Mr. MacGregor: I wish that I could agree with my hon. Friend that it was extraordinary behaviour on the part of the Labour party. Sadly, it is all too typical, and I was horrified by the reputed remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), that the Audit Commission's
unhelpful undermining of local authority initiatives undoubtedly mean its days are numbered".
The Audit Commission has shown how local authority services can be improved, with the charge payer being saved about £1·3 billion, and has shown how waiting lists in hospitals can be cut by a third at no extra cost. So Labour's action over the Audit Commission carries this single message for charge payers and taxpayers everywhere, "It has money to burn—yours."

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Waddington: The Bill is an important reforming measure which sets out to increase society's confidence in the criminal justice and penal system and its effectiveness in dealing with offenders.
It creates a more coherent statutory framework for sentencing, based on the seriousness of the offence that has been committed. That, along with sentencing guidelines by the Court of Appeal, the power of the Attorney-General to take over-lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal and the work of the Judicial Studies Board, should make for much greater consistency in sentencing. I said "consistency" not "uniformity", which is argued for, extraordinarily enough, in the reasoned amendment. I put that down to no more than a schoolboy howler, because I cannot believe that that is what is intended.
The Bill reforms the parole system to ensure that those who are sent to prison will generally spend a greater proportion of their sentence in custody and will be supervised on release. The Bill contains proposals on children's evidence which will ensure that those who abuse children will not be able to hide behind difficulties that their victims now face in going to court.
The Bill also includes measures designed to reinforce parental responsibility and finally, and on a different theme, we are taking the opportunity to provide for the putting out to tender of police and prison escort duties and security in magistrates courts so that police and prison officers can concentrate on their real work; the Bill proposes to give the private sector the opportunity to tender for the running of the new remand centre at Everthorpe—now called Wolds.
Many of those proposals are radical, but all are built on firm foundations. As for the Bill's sentencing framework, we are in many respects setting out to extend over the whole age range the requirements imposed on the courts so far as young offenders are concerned in the Criminal Justice Acts 1982 and 1988, requirements which have already led to substantially fewer young people being given custodial sentences. The proposals on parole and children's evidence implement the recommendations of thorough and detailed reports of reviews held by Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and by His Honour Judge Pigot respectively. The proposals on private sector involvement in the remand system are also based on extensive research and consultation.

Mr. Max Madden: The Home Secretary referred to the involvement of private security firms. As the personnel policies of many of those companies are, to say the least, unsavoury, will he give an assurance that one of the requirements imposed by the

Home Office will be that none of the companies should be subscribers to the Economic League and other black listing organisations and he will seek an assurance, before issuing contracts, that that will be the case?

Mr. Waddington: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Bill, wherein are set out the most detailed provisions to ensure that the service provided is excellent and that, within the organisation, there will be a Government official, a monitor as it were, to ensure that the higher standards are maintained.
The circumstances of cases that come before the courts are almost infinitely various. Therefore, when one comes to sentencing, consistency of approach, rather than uniformity of outcome, must be the aim: therefore, I have had no difficulty in resisting any temptation to impose detailed and rigid sentencing rules upon the courts, such as would require particular offences to be sentenced within only a narrow range of options. But it is right that Parliament should guide the courts on the general principles to be adopted.
Fairness and consistency are paramount in the administration of justice. Therefore, there can be no place, in a criminal justice system worthy of that name, for any sort of discrimination on grounds of race, colour, creed or sex. Any such discrimination would be utterly inimical to the principles of justice on which the system is founded, and I believe that the more consistent framework provided in the Bill will enable those principles to be upheld. All the agencies that work in the criminal justice system are committed to policies and practices to achieve that aim.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Home Secretary say whether he has any objection at this stage to accepting the recommendation of the criminal Bar that there should be a declaratory provision to ensure that his objectives on racial discrimination are met?

Mr. Waddington: I certainly have no objection in principle—how could one, if one were talking only of a clause in the Bill that was declaratory and stated what the present law was? Even if it went further than that, the subject is obviously something which could be usefully debated in Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with that.
Secondly, the aim of the proposals is to deal with offenders and stop crime more effectively. We expect our proposals to lead to a fall in the use of imprisonment and therefore to a fall in the prison population. This is obviously to be welcomed and I expect it to happen, although the numbers involved are, in the nature of things, difficult to estimate. But I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. This is certainly not a measure designed to achieve some artificial short-term reduction in prison numbers at the expense of proper protection for the public.
Instead, the Bill's proposals are part of the Government's wider strategy for tackling crime more effectively. The probation service will have a central role in implementing the Bill's proposals for pre-sentence reports, community penalties and post-custody supervision of offenders. We shall set national standards for these matters and our Green Paper, "Supervision and Punishment in the Community", published in February this year, set out a number of options for improving the responsiveness of the probation service to the demands that it is likely to face. We shall also support it with the necessary resources.
No one can doubt the effectiveness of the Government's support for other parts of the criminal justice system, given the investment of money and ideas that we have put into police manpower and resources, the prison service, crime prevention and support for victims.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The probation service is dealt with in the Green Paper and in the Bill, but I was at a conference of magistrates in Birmingham on Saturday at which delegates asked me about financial resources, given that the service attracts an 80 per cent. grant. They were worried that, because of financial restraints on local authorities, there will not be enough money to support the work of the probation service. Were they wrong?

Mr. Waddington: There will be a 27 per cent. increase in funding over the next three years. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of an interesting passage at the back of the White Paper which deals with resources. We have always acknowledged that if these proposals succeed there will have to be an expanded probation service—not the reverse.
The Bill clearly states that the basic principle should be that the punishment should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, but our plain duty is to protect the public and in certain cases a tougher sentence than that warranted by the seriousness of the offence may be justified by the need to protect the public from serious harm—and that is provided for.
If an offender has already been punished for a previous offence it seems unfair and unjust to punish him twice over by increasing the penalty for a subsequent offence; it seems wrong that petty offenders should be imprisoned merely because they have committed petty offences previously. But we must face up to why such offenders sometimes finish up in prison now. That happens, I fear, because until now community penalties have often not been perceived as real punishments and so long as community penalties continue to be perceived as a bit of a let-off, sentencers will inevitably be tempted to say to the offenders, "Well, you got away with it last time, but you did not learn your lesson, so this time we will give you a taste of real punishment—prison."

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose——

Mr. Waddington: I certainly do not blame sentencers who have sometimes taken this view in the past, since it is clear that in some respects community penalties have not been as rigorous as they should have been. Moreover, the range of community penalties has not been wide enough to provide suitable punishment for all offenders who could otherwise have been dealt with effectively in the community.
I find it difficult to understand why some of the people who are in favour of less use of custody do not seem to recognise that rigorous and demanding community penalties must be provided if that aim is to be achieved.

Mr. Alun Michael: rose——

Mr. Cryer: rose——

Mr. Waddington: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in a moment, but I want to finish this passage because it is an important one.
The public certainly will not put up with a slap on the wrist as an adequate response to relatively serious offending. Hence, there will be a wider range of community penalties—and combinations of them—which can make tough demands on offenders and offer the courts what they and the public will recognise as an adequate response to criminal behaviour.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is widespread support for community service in place of imprisonment? Does he agree that many people feel that the really big criminals operating in the City are not being pursued vigorously enough by the Government because of their insistence on the enterprise culture and their exaltation of greed and personal profit? The Government ought to set an example by pursuing the big criminals in the City with much more vigour than they appear to be doing.

Mr. Waddington: Recent events do not bear out for a moment what the hon. Gentleman says. People have seen how serious offenders are dealt with when those concerned with financial matters are dishonest in their dealings.

Mr. Michael: Does the Secretary of State accept that the police in general feel that, because they are provided with inadequate resources, they are being neglected and that, therefore, they are unable to do their job properly? Community penalties are all very well, but the major problem is that inadequate resources have been provided over the years to implement them. The resources chapter in the White Paper deals with the provision of resources for specific penalties, but it says nothing about prevention. If the Government tackled properly the prevention of crime, many people would not get into the criminal system in the first place.

Mr. Waddington: I do not know what sort of world the hon. Gentleman lives in. During the past 10 years, Neighbourhood Watch has grown to 81,000 schemes. Moreover, throughout the country there are safer cities projects and Crime Concern, funded by the Government, has blossomed. No Government have paid greater attention to crime prevention than this one. The hon. Gentleman must be living in a very odd world if he does not know that there are 15,500 more police officers now than there were in 1979. In addition, 10,000 civilians who were not employed in 1979 are now employed by the police thereby freeing police officers, who previously did desk jobs, to get out on the streets.
For the most serious offences, there is no doubt that a prison sentence will normally be necessary, and often a long one. Under the guidance of the Court of Appeal, sentences for offences such as rape and robbery have been getting longer in recent years and rightly so. The Bill confirms the appropriateness of heavy sentences for sadistic and brutal crimes, making it clear that long sentences can be given where the public may be at risk of serious harm from a sexual or violent offender. On the other hand, penalties that keep the offender in the community may often be better for offences of a less serious nature, particularly where violence is not involved.

Mr. Robin Squire: There will be widespread support for my right hon. and learned Friend's statement that sentences for crimes of violence, including sexual crimes, are to be increased. Will he undertake to look closely at clause 25 which, it has been suggested,


would increase the punishment for minor offences such as soliciting by men or women? If that is so, I am sure that many hon. Members would suggest that much higher sentences for those offences are not appropriate.

Mr. Waddington: I do not believe that my hon. Friend can be right. Clause 25 does not refer to that. If he will have a word with me afterwards, I shall see whether there is anything that I can do to meet his point.
Despite all the good work that is done in prisons, the experience of prison is inevitably to make the offender used to living in an institution and to cut him off from his ties with the community. Instead of being made to face up to his responsibilities in the community, the offender is relieved of them. Less experienced offenders rub shoulders with the more experienced and, as often as not, they come out far worse than they were when they went in. A community sentence which makes the offender face up to his crimes and their effect on the victim can often make greater demands on the offender than allowing him just to loaf around in prison at the taxpayer's expense.
I shall not go through the whole Bill—but I will deal briefly with some of the main features.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Secretary of State admit that over the past decade, as the large mental institutions have been emptied, many people with mental illnesses have ended up not homeless in cardboard boxes but in the prison system? Has not he missed a golden opportunity to do something for that vulnerable group of people who are not catered for in the Bill? Secure units for people with mental illness are in short supply and this is just a missed opportunity.

Mr. Waddington: We have not missed a golden opportunity because this is the problem to which we have been addressing ourselves. The hon. Lady may know that in the past month we issued a circular that reinforced the opportunities that the courts have for diverting people of that kind from prison.
Clause 1 establishes that a custodial sentence is to be passed——

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Home Secretary talked about diverting people. Who diverts them and where are they diverted to?

Mr. Waddington: I was telling the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that within the past month we have issued a circular reminding the courts of all the opportunities that exist for sentences that divert people suffering from mental illness to places other than within the criminal justice system.

Mr. Hattersley: Since the Home Secretary cannot bring himself to give us an answer, let me tell him. They are diverted to sitting about in the streets with nobody to look after them.

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about and he had better read the circular.
Clause 1 establishes that a custodial sentence is to be passed only if the court is of the opinion that the offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified for it. This criterion is based on that which applies to young offenders under section 123 of the Criminal Justice

Act 1988, but a little more flexibility is provided to cater for the case where the court is sentencing for more than one offence, and a second offence might tip the balance between custody being or not being justified.
Clause 2 requires the court to apply similar principles to determining the length of a custodial sentence, and clause 3 sets out the information to which the court is to have regard in forming its judgment whether a custodial sentence is justified and, if so, for how long. In all cases, a pre-sentence report is required. This will replace the existing social inquiry report, but in a form more closely adapted to the court's sentencing requirements.
Clause 3 makes it clear that the previous record of the offender, or his response to previous sentences, is not to be taken into account unless the previous offending behaviour is genuinely relevant to the new offence in the sense of making it more serious.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there is nothing in the Bill that will affect or change a suspect's right to silence? Does he accept that the only people who benefit from the right to silence are those who have something to hide? Does he think that we should include in the Bill a provision whereby courts are allowed to take into account the fact that someone has refused to disclose what he or she was doing at a particular time?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is right in believing that there is nothing in the Bill relating to the so-called right to silence. My hon. Friend might have an opportunity of discussing that when the Bill is upstairs in Committee. It is a pretty important subject which is in the remit of the committee now being presided over by Lord Justice May.
I was dealing with the relevance of previous convictions which might suggest, for example, that the offence before the court was the premeditated act of a professional burglar and not done on the spur of the moment. Clearly, in that case, the previous conviction would be relevant.

Mr. David Clelland: Is the Secretary of State aware of the worrying growth among young people of car theft and dangerous speeding around residential estates, which led to the death of a 10-month-old baby in my constituency last week? Does he believe that the law on such crimes should be tightened?

Mr. Waddington: I am entitled to ask the hon. Gentlemen to consider the figures on the number of young people who have been sent to custodial establishments following the passing of the Criminal Justice Acts of 1982 and 1988. Interestingly, although those Acts put in place a similar regime to the one that we are proposing to extend across the age range, the number of offenders in that age group seems to have gone down rather than up. I am not attracted by the idea that we should cast aside these imaginative proposals, which have been tested as a result of the 1982 and 1988 Acts.

Mr. Clelland: rose——

Mr. Waddington: I cannot give way again; I must get on.
Clause 5 provides that community penalties should be imposed only in accordance with the gravity of the offence. It lists the various orders that are available, including the new combined probation and community service order.


The maximum length of a community service order on a 16-year-old is brought in line with that for 17-year-olds —240 hours.

Mr. James Hill: Community responsibility for offenders has been practised in many areas, including in my constituency. It is almost impossible to oversee those activities. More people are needed on the ground to ensure that young offenders are doing what they say they are doing. There has been an absolutely negative response in my area. I do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend will allocate more funds to the overseers, but it is a problem.

Mr. Waddington: This is an important point. We shall allocate resources, because we want effective community service programmes that make real demands of offenders. That is why there will be national standards on which much work has been done by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
The new curfew order is included in the list of community penalties. It could play a useful part in keeping offenders out of trouble, preventing them from mixing with their old criminal associates on a Saturday night, for instance, and drifting back into crime.
The House will recall the recent pilot schemes by which courts in three areas were able to use electronic monitoring to enforce curfews that were imposed as a condition of bail. Relatively few orders were made, because it was a condition of their use that the case was so serious that otherwise the magistrates would have remanded in custody. The orders that were made demonstrated the technical feasibility of electronic monitoring and I am bound to say that it completely baffles me why the press keeps insisting that the defying of the conditions of bail in some of those cases proves that monitoring does not work. If the authorities knew, as they did, that the conditions had not been observed, the monitoring was highly successful.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Does not evidence from America demonstrate the success of electronic monitoring? Those who are being negative and are suggesting that we should not proceed with a scheme, which is in its early days, whereby we can keep people who have done wrong in the community and monitor their activities are foolish. I endorse electronic tagging and hope that the pilot schemes will continue.

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. The opposition to the schemes is nonsensical. Those who oppose electronic nagging—[Laughter. ] I mean tagging—are the same people who are nagging me to try to keep people out of custody. Can one imagine anything more frivolous and ridiculous than the Opposition giggling and hallooing about electronic nagging—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nagging?"] It really is nagging. If the Opposition had their way, we would finish up with great pleas from them for more people to be punished in the community with not a single punishment available in the community. That is the sort of nonsense we invariably hear from the nagging gentlemen opposite.

Sir Peter Emery: I listened carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend and I congratulate him on what he said. The long title of the Bill would allow him to deal with some of the problems of hooliganism, particularly the problem of drinking alcohol publicly in the streets. Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied

that the recommendations in the paper that has been issued by the Home Office to local authorities will be carried out? If local authorities do not, we should take positive action in the House to ensure that this is done nationally. Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on this matter?

Mr. Waddington: We approved a model byelaw and it is now up to local authorities to decide whether they want to use it. Under this procedure, it is not for us to say that they must use it. I hope that my hon. Friend will do his best to persuade his local authority that it is well worth its while to look into this aspect, but I cannot take the matter further than that.
Financial penalties are covered in clauses 15 to 21. The vast majority of criminal offences are dealt with now by fines—80 per cent. of offenders were punished in this way in 1989—and the proposals in the Bill would encourage the use of financial penalties in appropriate cases and set out to make their use more effective.
Clause 16 introduces a unit fines scheme which will enable magistrates to take account of the ability of offenders to pay and to fine in a way that makes equal demands on offenders of different means. Magistrates courts will be required to assess fines in terms of units, with the number of units corresponding to the seriousness of the offence and the value of each unit reflecting the weekly disposable income of the offender. One benefit of the new system should be a reduction in the number of people sent to prison for fine default and that should certainly be the effect of the new power in clause 21 for fines to be recovered by attachment of income support.
This part of the Bill includes the important proposal in clause 23 to reduce certain maximum penalties—the penalties for theft, which will come down from 10 years to seven years, and for non-domestic burglary, which will come down from 14 years to 10 years. The maximum penalty for domestic burglary remains at 14 years. Few people now go to prison for anything like seven years for theft and virtually no one goes to prison for as many as 10 years for burglary, but a reduction in maximum penalties is a useful way in which Parliament can express its view on the relative seriousness of, for instance, crimes of dishonesty and crimes of violence.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I see no mention of a proposal to do away with concurrent sentencing. Is it not about time that people who committed more than one crime served a sentence for more than one crime? Should not we do away with the nonsense and injustice of concurrent sentencing?

Mr. Waddington: I do not think that we could do away with concurrent sentences. There could be absurd situations in which a person was before a court for 25 crimes, all serious, and the judge took the view that each crime warranted a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment. The judge would finish up sending the chap down for 250 years. Everyone would say that that was a bizarre and unusual punishment which was highly unlikely to be enforced.
Part II of the Bill introduces a radical reform of the arrangements for granting parole and remission. The present arrangements are not satisfactory. The interaction of the minimum qualifying period for parole and remission can lead to prisoners who have been given different terms of imprisonment serving the same time. At present,


prisoners sentenced to 12, 15 and 18 months' imprisonment could all be released after six months. The first would be released with automatic half remission, the second would qualify for parole after six months and the third would become eligible for parole at the one third point in his sentence. Release at the one third point of sentence, which can occur if a person gets maximum parole and maximum remission, lead to an unacceptable erosion of the value of the sentence passed by the court. That is bad for respect for the criminal justice system.
The arrangements proposed in part II are intended to make the sentence served relate more closely to the sentence passed. No prisoner will be released earlier than the halfway point of his sentence, except on exceptional compassionate grounds. Prisoners serving fewer than four years will be released automatically at that point unless release is delayed by added days awarded for misbehaviour while in prison. Once released, those serving sentences of a year or more, and all young offenders, will be supervised by the probation service up to the three quarter point of their sentence as a means of protecting the public and to assist their reintegration into society. All such offenders will be liable to be returned to prison to serve the remainder of their sentences if they reoffend before the expiry of the original term.
The Government agree with the view taken by the Carlisle committee that a discretionary early release scheme for prisoners serving relatively short terms can no longer be justified. For those serving four years or more, the primary consideration in deciding whether parole should be granted should be risk to the public. The Parole Board will, of course, continue in existence to consider the cases of prisoners who are eligible for parole under the new arrangements. However, as there will be many fewer cases to be considered for parole than now, the present local review committees, which carry out the initial consideration of cases, will no longer be required. The Bill also makes it possible for the Home Secretary to delegate to the Parole Board the final decision in such classes of case as he specifies. It is my intention initially to delegate this responsibility to the board in cases where the prisoner is serving a term of fewer than seven years.
The Carlisle committee noted in its report that the meaning that will be restored to the sentence actually passed may well result in somewhat shorter sentences. I think that there is reason to believe that the changes proposed, when taken as a whole, will not result in an increase in the prison population and may lead to a reduction.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: When will the commencement clauses come into operation? There is a problem that, although in future people will be sentenced under the legislation, existing prisoners will also be considered for parole under the Bill. Those in prison at present are uncertain whether the old or new parole conditions will apply to them.

Mr. Waddington: There is no need for that concern. The Bill proposes that the release date of those already in prison should stand. Their position will not be prejudiced by the fact that they are in prison at the time of the introduction of the new system.
I now come to the very important proposals in clauses 42 to 45 with regard to the Pigot report and children's evidence. At present, children can suffer greatly as a result of having to give evidence in criminal trials. Furthermore, there are a number of obstacles in the way of their evidence being properly considered.
First, the present technical rules about the competence of witnesses result in many young children who have been abused, or have witnessed abuse, simply not being allowed to tell their story to a jury. The Pigot committee's view —and we agree with it—is that the old rules should be swept away and the age and maturity of the child should affect the weight placed upon the evidence, not whether he or she can be heard in the first place. Courts in many other countries work without a competency requirement and I am sure that we can do so as well.
I have no wish to tamper with the rules against hearsay that prevent people who have interviewed a child being able to repeat to the court what the child has told them. What is at issue is whether video recordings of interviews with the child should be allowed in evidence. We believe that they should and that they should be shown to the jury as the child's evidence-in-chief, subject to the judge being able to rule against the admission of any evidence if it does injustice to the accused.
Obviously we must ensure that the child's evidence can be properly tested and that the defendant's right to a fair trial is properly safeguarded. So the Bill provides that cross-examination can take place in its proper place at the trial by the advocate for the defendant, but the power in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to enable the child to answer questions through a video link from outside the court room will be preserved.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for including those provisions. Will he join me in congratulating the many policewomen throughout the country who have been advocating the change that he has outlined for some time? They made their case to the Pigot committee and it accepted it. They have done a public service in enabling the Government to introduce a proposed amendment to the law.

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Congratulations are due to the police. Many teams of police officers carried out experimental schemes which worked so satisfactorily that they impressed Judge Pigot and his committee and reinforced his conclusions that there had to be a change in the law.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in America, where the first interview with a child is recorded, 85 per cent. of defendants change their plea to one of guilty? Sometimes defendants would be ashamed to have the video played in open court and in other cases defendants are ashamed and full of remorse for what they have done to the child. This procedure would spare children from having to give evidence and, therefore, must be something which the House should support.

Mr. Waddington: To the best of my knowledge, what my hon. Friend says about the American experience is entirely true. I take the view that the introduction of these new procedures will result in many more pleas of guilty and that is eminently satisfactory.
The remaining clauses of part III deal with parental responsibility. I have said before, and I say again, that it is nonsense to suggest that every time a young person comes before a court the parents are to blame. Sensible parents should thank their lucky stars that their own children have not fallen foul of the law. But parents have a key role to play in instilling in their children a sense of right and wrong and the Bill underlines that role. It places a duty on the courts to require the attendance of a parent or guardian unless it would be unreasonble to do so. Parents of children under 16 years of age are already normally responsible for the payment of any fine or compensation order that is imposed and to strengthen the impact of this the Bill makes clear that the courts, in deciding on the level of payment to be made, must take account of the parents' means and not only the means of the child. The courts' powers to bind over parents of offenders to take proper care of and exercise proper control over their children are also extended.
This part of the Bill also changes the way in which young people themselves are treated in the criminal justice system.

Mr. Peter Archer: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if someone is to be bound over it is important that everyone should know what he has to do in order not to forfeit his recognisance? What is envisaged in keeping proper control of the child? Does that mean that if the child reoffends the recognisance is almost automatically forfeited? If not, what are the rules?

Mr. Waddington: I envisage a situation where the child and the parents appear before the court, the court is not impressed with the story told by the parents about the sort of supervision that they have been exercising over the child, the court comes to the conclusion that the child has been offending, going out late at night and the parents have not even known that that has been happening, the parents are bound over, return with the child and it then appears that the parents have not paid the slightest attention to the child's movements and have done nothing to try to find out where the child has been going at night. I do not suggest for a moment that there could be an absolute liability under which whatever the child did wrong was brought to the parents' door. That could not possibly be right.
Part III also changes the way in which young people are treated in the criminal justice system. It proposes that 17-year-olds should henceforth be treated as young persons rather than adults. Clause 53 renames the juvenile court the youth court.
The White Paper invited views about whether the sentence of detention in a young offender institution might be abolished for female offenders under the age of 18. Having considered the views expressed, we have concluded that a different approach would be better and therefore clause 49 proposes that the provisions for boys and girls should be brought into line. That will mean that neither boys nor girls aged 14 will be sentenced to detention in a young offender institution. Sometimes, however, children are involved in very serious offences and we have, I believe, got to keep the power in section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

Mr. James Couchman: One of the least attractive and least satisfactory aspects of prisons is the

holding on remand of young boys aged 16 and 17. Will my right hon. and learned Friend, through the arrangements in the Bill, take urgent steps to ensure that 16 and 17-year-old boys are not held in adult prisons, particularly when on remand?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend will know that there is a very important passage about that in the White Paper. I assure him that an announcement will be made about our proposals during proceedings on the Bill.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider youngsters aged 14 or 15 who play truant and, because of the time taken by the juvenile courts to deal with them, have actually left school before their cases are heard? Is not it time that we considered the whole process and that time was taken to deal with juvenile offenders who play truant, to ensure that they come to court as quickly as possible because they are the very people who are out on the streets committing burglaries during the course of the school day?

Mr. Waddington: It is important that those young offenders should be brought to court quickly. Indeed, I believe that all offenders should be brought to court quickly. During proceedings on the Bill, we might discuss whether the present provisions in law about truancy are strong enough or whether the law should be reinforced perhaps once again by binding over provisions to bind over parents to ensure that their children do not play truant.

Mr. Hattersley: I hope that the Home Secretary will tell us a little more about his proposal for young offenders remanded in prison. He was right to say that his White Paper made specific proposals in that area and he was right to imply that his Bill does not reflect those proposals. With respect, it will not do for the Home Secretary to tell the House on Second Reading that some change will be made to the Bill sooner or later. He should give us some idea at least of the shape and size of that change.

Mr. Waddington: The object is to devise a system that will not result in their going to prison and that must be worked out closely. We must bear in mind that some of those who are remanded in custody at the moment are remanded by the magistrates because the magistrates believe that it is necessary to remand them to protect the public. We must devise a system whereby secure accommodation will be available as a substitute for sending those people to prison. That is the difficulty, but there is no doubt about the aim. The right hon. Gentleman and I obviously agree about the aim, but we will make an announcement as soon as possible.
Part IV provides for the more efficient administration of the criminal justice services. Clauses 57 to 60 provide for the appointment of court security officers in magistrates courts with a framework of powers and safeguards that will resolve any uncertainty about the powers of court staff to deal with, or anticipate, disorder.
Clauses 61 to 71 give effect to the Government's proposals for involving the private sector in the operation of the remand system. Power is being taken to contract out court escort work and to put out to tender the running of new remand centres. If the proposals are accepted by Parliament, competitive tenders will be invited for the operation of the new remand centre currently being built at Everthorpe in Humberside.
If there is private sector involvement, the operation of the private sector body will be closely supervised; in the case of escort duties by a Government official called the monitor and by a panel of lay observers.
As to remand centres, any one that was contracted out would have permanently assigned to it a Government-appointed controller, who, rather than the private sector director of the establishment, would conduct disciplinary hearings, authorise a prisoner's removal from association, his confinement in a special cell, or the application to him of any other special control or restraint.
Finally, I should like to emphasise the importance of clauses 76 and 77. They fill a gap in the ability of probation committees to make grants to voluntary and other organisations that provide facilities for the supervision or assistance of offenders or defendants on bail. The discussion paper "Partnership in dealing with offenders in the community", which we issued in April this year, outlines a number of options for involving the voluntary and private sectors more extensively in support of the probation service's work.
I hope that this description of the Bill's main contents has confirmed what I said at the beginning—that the Bill consists of a coherent and well thought-out set of interrelated measures, all designed in one way or another to make the criminal justice system more effective and efficient in the way in which it delivers justice and deals with offenders, and that it will be able to respond yet more effectively to the challenges with which it is confronted. As such, it deserves, I believe, to be supported by all sections of the House and I commend it accordingly.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, while making provision for appropriate custodial punishment for violent offenders, does not include any measures to encourage crime prevention; fails to take the steps necessary for a significant reduction in the imprisonment of minor offenders; largely ignores the scandal of remand prisoners; contains no code of standards which all prisons must observe; does not introduce a sentencing council to ensure uniformity of sentence; makes no provision for adequate examination of alleged miscarriages of justice; and will have little impact either on the efficiency of the courts or this country's unacceptably high prison population.
According to the White Paper that preceded the Bill and on which the Bill is said to be based, one of the objects of the legislation is that
a significant reduction in the number of offenders in custody
should come about, yet, when the Bill was published, the Home Secretary was explicit. He said:
I would not like anyone to presume this Bill is a measure designed to empty prisons.
He made the same point during the debate on the Queen's Speech, when he said:
it certainly would not be right to present our proposals as being designed to get rid of prison overcrowding."—[Official Report, 12 November 1989; Vol. 180, c. 353.]
Today, he made one of the blindingly obvious statements that we have come to expect from him—that it was not his intention to allow prisoners out of prison if they were a threat and danger to the community. Nobody expects that and nobody would support that.
The real question is whether the Home Secretary expects that, by removing custodial sentences from prisoners who are not a threat and danger to the community, he imagines that the Bill will result in a substantial and highly necessary reduction in the prison population. If, as the afternoon wears on, he comes to any firm conclusion about his intentions, perhaps he will let the House know.

Mr. Waddington: I shall let the right hon. Gentleman know what the calculations are, but I still think that the point that I made is important. We really must not approach this matter as just an exercise in getting rid of prison overcrowding and getting people out of prison regardless of the protection of the public. Leaving out the parole changes, the new sentencing framework should lead to a reduction of 1,500. The parole changes should lead to a further reduction of 500, excluding any changes in sentence lengths or the return of persons to prison. A 10 per cent. return rate would lead to a net increase of about 300. A 20 per cent. return rate would lead to a net increase of about 1,100. A 5 per cent. reduction in the length of sentences of up to four years would lead to a reduction of 900, offsetting the increasee in numbers resulting from return during the recall period. The right hon. Gentleman will see how complicated it is.

Mr. Hattersley: I hope that it is as complicated as it sounds, because my fear is that it is not complicated at all but is simply a wild guess made in the anticipation that I would ask the Home Secretary to answer the question that I asked last Monday. I hope that the Home Secretary—knowing what a courteous man he is, I am sure that he will do this—will let us know the calculations on which those figures are based so that we can all examine them with the care that they deserve.
In the meantime, I have two comments. First, as I shall try to explain as my speech proceeds, I have some reservations about whether the changes in the parole system will have the result that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has described. I hope that they will, but they may not. Secondly, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands that, by his own standards and according to his own criteria, reducing the prison population by removing from custodial sentencing men and women who are perfectly safe to be in the community is, in itself, a major blow against crime. It was the Home Secretary—not me—who wrote:
Prisons have become the universities of crime.
I hope that we can be consistent in our constant reiteration that in many ways crime is increased by sending to prison men and women who should not be there in the first place.
I make my position and that of my party absolutely clear. Of course, we share the Government's view that some crimes, especially violent and sexual crimes, should result in prison sentences. We also support the principle that many crimes should not carry a custodial sentence. If the object of the Bill is to keep out of prison those offenders who should not be sent there, it is absurd to say that reducing the prison population is not one of its principal intentions. The pretence that reducing the prison population is an irrelevant by-product could be forgotten if it were no more than a result of the Home Secretary's usual tenuous grasp of the subject or an indication of the need to guard his back. But if it is more than that, the inconsistency is worth a mention. I believe that the


inconsistency has a deeper significance and that it is reflected in the ambivalence of parts of the Bill. That inconsistency results in confusions and contradictions. Worse still, it results in an absolute failure to introduce the procedures that would ensure the successful application even of the principle that the Government claim to support, which is that sentences should invariably be suited to the offence. The Government's continued obsession with punishment lies at the heart of their failure adequately to encourage crime prevention.
I take my first example of the confusion from clause 1, which is the keystone of the Bill and a proposition with which the Opposition are in wholehearted agreement. Clause 1 requires that a custodial sentence should be imposed only when the crime is too "serious" to justify anything else. Unfortunately, no attempt is made to define the word "serious". As the afternoon goes on, perhaps the Home Secretary will tell the House the way in which he believes that the word "serious" should be interpreted by the courts. What is more, clause 1 does not apply to persons who have already been to gaol and who are charged with indictable offences. One quarter of the men and women who are charged on indictment currently receive a non-custodial sentence, although many of them —the Home Office does not know how many, but has confirmed that there are many—have previously been in prison. Applying the consistency that we should like to see, we must therefore ask the Home Secretary what he expects to happen to such people in the future. One interpretation of the clause might result in custodial sentences being applied to offenders who are not now sent to prison and who are not, by any reasonable standard, appropriate for that sentence.
It is not for me to say whether the Home Secretary supports the right idea and has lost his nerve or whether he has watered down a better Bill that was bequeathed to him by his predecessor. However, whatever the reason, the ambivalence produces confusion that can only result in the supposed intention—appropriate sentences for appropriate crimes—being frustrated. I justify that assertion by referring to clause 3 which deals with the awarding of a custodial sentence. Subsection (2) states:
an offence shall not be regarded as more serious by reason of any previous convictions".
Those words implement the White Paper promise to ensure that sentences are awarded on the basis of specific convictions rather than records.
However, subsection (3) instructs the courts to take into account the circumstances of any offences for which the offender has been previously convicted. Those two adjacent subsections send messages to the courts that, through interpretation or misinterpretation, might be in conflict. The conflict, the misinterpretation and the confusion can be overcome in only one way—by the creation of a sentencing council, a subject to which I shall return in a moment. We deeply regret that that is not one of the Bill's proposals.
Even without the confusion that I have attempted to describe, there will be problems with persuading the courts to impose custodial sentences in the way and to the extent that is right and necessary. Those problems can be resolved only, as I have already said and now repeat, by the creation of a sentencing council to give courts advice —and I emphasise the word "advice"—on the range, extent and type of sentence that they should award. As far

as I can determine, that idea is supported by everyone involved in the area, with the exception of the Government and the more archaic sections of the judiciary.
A sentencing council is essential because of discrepancies in sentencing. Even if the Home Secretary had not set himself the aim of sentences fitting convictions, such a council would be necessary. I shall outline some of the current discrepancies. The latest figures show that at Wood Green Crown court, 30 per cent. of convicted defendants are sent to prison, whereas at Mold, on a very similar crime pattern, the figure is 69 per cent. In Powys, 6 per cent. of convictions for theft carry a custodial sentence, but in Cheshire the figure is 17 per cent. In Gloucester, 29 per cent. of burglars go to prison, but in north Wales the figure is 54 per cent.
A sentencing council would help to smooth out such unacceptable discrepancies. It would also contribute to the eradication of the intolerable bias against black and Asian British, a bias which disgraces our criminal justice system. Some 16 per cent. of the prison population is black or Asian, compared with 5 per cent. for the population as a whole. That is not because they are less law abiding than their white colleagues and contemporaries, but because they are more likely, on equal terms, to be awarded a custodial sentence and to be refused bail. Having been remanded in gaol, they are more than twice as likely to be acquitted, proving that it is a question not of their criminality, but of the bias against them when bail is awarded.
A sentencing council is necessary to right all those wrongs. It is also essential if we are to strike the right balance between prison and non-custodial sentences.

Mr. Steve Norris: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that any bias in the judicial system against a particular section of the community is to be deplored, and every effort should be taken within the judicial system to ensure that that bias is obviated. We catch the general drift of his remarks, which is to avoid aberrant sentences in various parts of the country, but could he explain what is a real worry for some of us? How would his proposals materially improve the current position? The Court of Appeal issues sentencing guidelines, the Magistrates Association sets tariffs, and the present framework that offers advice and direction to courts disposing of offenders avoids what surely must be the great danger of a national sentencing council—that of, in effect, sentencing people by microcomputer. That would be very unsatisfactory, given the individual nature of each offence.

Mr. Hattersley: We do not advocate sentencing people by microcomputer. However, I am strongly in favour of an Asian British citizen and a white British citizen, who are being sentenced for the same crime, in the same circumstances, with the same background and with the same ameliorating factors, receiving identical sentences. The outcome will never be perfectly achieved, but there is a number of ways in which to approach the matter. The first is the declaratory statement in the Bill. I hope that the Home Secretary is as sympathetic towards that as he sounded when I caught his drift. I shall press him on that in Committee.
The sentencing council should have a force and influence that the guidelines do not have. Were the guidelines to possess such force, the figures I read out a


moment ago could not apply. The sentencing council would take stronger views than the guidelines on such matters and expose some of the enormities. It would embarrass those people who do not live up to the high standards that I genuinely believe the Home Secretary wants to see applied in court. The sentencing council would be a tougher instrument than the guidelines. It is not simply I and my party who believe that—nearly everyone in the system, apart from some judges and the Government, believe that such a council is right. In support of that contention I quote, as I quoted last week, but more briefly, what The Times had to say on the subject:
The transmission mechanism between Parliament, Home Office and judiciary is creaking and ineffective"—
I believe that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) read out one of those creaky and ineffective circulars.
Judges are notoriously their own creatures, disinclined through long exercise of power to heed outside influence".
In common with The Times, I believe that only a sentencing council can make judges more responsive.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's desire to improve the sentencing process, which he has constantly elucidated to the House. If we had a sentencing council it would take over from the judgment of an individual judge in first instance and then from the Court of Appeal. The individual tribunal looks at the person before the court and judges consider the circumstances of that person, the offence and other related circumstances before passing sentence. The media and the House would look to the sentencing council to judge that that sentence does not fit. Surely the right hon. Gentleman accepts that that is not justice, but an interference in the process of law.

Mr. Hattersley: The sentencing council that I propose would not make adjudications on individual cases, as that would elevate its status into something quite different from what I intend. The sentencing council would look at court records and the records of individual judges.
Some weeks ago a recently retired judge appeared on television and announced that he always assumed one category of prisoner to be guilty because of that category of prisoner's private life and private conduct. I shall not describe that category or the language in which the judge described it. Somebody should study his pattern of sentencing, but, to date, that has not happened. Somebody should ensure that one individual does not, for one reason or another, abuse the extraordinary power which he, as a judge, possesses. I shall not speculate on the reasons behind that judge's decision.
Another important reason for setting up a sentencing council is that it is essential to improve the prospects—I put it no higher than that—of changing the sentencing climate and the ethos of sentencing. The tragedy of our criminal justice system is that we assume that the normal outcome of many convictions is a prison sentence.
Community service, which is fine, and probation are described in the jargon as "alternatives"—something different from the norm. Such are the words used, but prison should not be the norm, but the exception. It should be the sentence of last resort and the sentencing council would help to make it so. That point was also made by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Judge Tumim, in his

report published a few weeks ago. He said that we should not judge prison in terms of retribution, gratification for the community or by whether it is nice or nasty to prisoners, but in terms of the criminality it produces and the pattern of society it creates. That is why it is so counter productive for the Home Secretary to use flamboyant language about slaps on wrists and the severity of punishment. That sort of language induces the wrong attitude towards what prison is supposed to be about and what sentencing is supposed to achieve. It is not simply about punishing people or gratification for those who have been wronged, but about building a different sort of society.
I have already spoken about the bias in our criminal justice system against black and Asian British. A week ago I asked the Home Secretary about the work done in his Department to prohibit and eliminate that bias. The Home Secretary said that he had no knowledge of such work, which was surprising, given the accounts about it which appeared in The Independent on 11 October and The Times on 13 October.
I shall explain what happened, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman may have found out by now. His civil servants discussed the inclusion in the Bill of a clause that prohibited discrimination in the criminal justice system. Such a clause does not appear in the Bill, but I give formal notice that we shall attempt to insert it in Committee. I say with gratitude that I believe that I interpreted some sympathy for the idea in one response that the Home Secretary gave, and I hope that we can build on the shred or degree of sympathy that I believe I detected. The absence of a clause on racial discrimination is not the Bill's only major omission.

Mr. Waddington: I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to leave the matter there. During the debate on the Queen's Speech he made a number of allegations which did not have a vestige of truth in them. The right hon. Gentleman asserted that clauses dealing with racial discrimination had been drafted and approved by my officials. The innuendo was that I had intervened to prevent them from getting into the Bill. There never were any such clauses and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, for once in his life, apologise for a most disgraceful calumny.

Mr. Hattersley: There was no innuendo to the effect that the Home Secretary had prevented that from happening. There was the assertion, which I repeat, that a number of judges had said that they did not wish it to happen. I shall gladly send to the Home Secretary before the debate is concluded—

Mr. Waddington: rose——

Mr. Hattersley: I shall not give way until I have answered his question. Before the debate ends, I shall gladly send the right hon. and learned Gentleman a letter sent by one of his civil servants to a participant at the meeting to which I referred. That letter talked about the discussion of inclusions in the Bill and it went on to say that, although those inclusions had been considered, it was decided that they should not appear in the Bill. It is not a matter of dispute. It is there in black and white. I am not speaking of a secret letter that has been leaked or stolen. It was sent to many of the participants in the discussions of potential clauses to be included in the Bill.

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman is being slippery. We are not talking about discussions but about an assertion that he made on 12 November, when he said:
The Home Secretary knows that while the Criminal Justice Bill was being drafted in the Home Office, officials … approved clauses to impose a duty on courts to end all racial discrimination in the criminal justice system … Those clauses were drafted in the Home Office.
Later, after I had told him that I knew of no such clauses, the right hon. Gentleman did not even then let go, but came back:
The Home Secretary says that he has not seen them, but that may be a confession of his incompetence. Is he telling me that they do not exist? If he is not, we can pursue the matter on Second Reading".—[Official Report, 12 November 1990; Vol. 180, c. 360.]
If that was not an allegation that clauses had been drafted and that I had refused to include them in the Bill, I do not know what the English language means. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to apologise for once in his life.

Mr. Hattersley: I do not apologise, because I have nothing for which to apologise.

Mr. Waddington: It was a complete mis-statement.

Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may claim that it was a complete mis-statement, but when we last discussed these matters he claimed that he had never heard of the proposal. I repeat that I shall send him in the next couple of hours the letter from his civil servant discussing with those interested parties the possibility of the inclusion of such clauses. The idea that I should apologise shows how out of perspective the Home Secretary gets this side of his character.

Mr. Maclennan: There is a much greater issue of principle involved in this question than the semantic dispute in which the Home Secretary appears to be involving himself. My understanding of the facts to which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred is that clauses were drafted——

Mr. Waddington: No. 4

Mr. Maclennan: I have seen the drafts and they were submitted. Although they were not drafted by Home Office officials, they were nevertheless seen by the Home Office, so the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is right.

Mr. Hattersley: "We plumb deep waters, Dr. Watson", someone once said. I can only repeat my assertion that I know that clauses were discussed, and the Home Secretary shall have the letter in question if that in any way consoles him. I repeat that I hope, despite his strange outburst, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be as sympathetic as he seemed to be only moments ago to the inclusion of such clauses when we submit them for consideration in Committee.

Mr. Waddington: I am not pressing for an apology, because, although the right hon. Gentleman made a mis-statement of fact, he obviously will not apologise. But I repeat that obviously we shall discuss in Committee proposals put forward for such a clause. Indeed, I had discussions with NACRO in which it suggested that there should be such a clause. My reply at the time was that I did not see great value in a mere declaratory provision, as it was described by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Clearly, the matter can be

discussed at leisure in Committee. That does not alter the fact that there has never been such a clause in the Home Office.

Mr. Hattersley: We are making progress. I welcome the attitude of the Home Secretary this afternoon, which is different from that which he struck during the Queen's Speech debate. We shall go on co-operating with him while he is in an emollient mood.
The absence of that clause is not the only major omission from the Bill. The measure does not even attempt to deal with the major miscarriages of justice that have scarred our criminal justice system in the recent past. The Guildford Four and the Maguires have been released and the release of the Birmingham Six is confidently expected. Yet the Government seem not to have noticed the failure of the Court of Appeal to respond to such cases with the speed and sensitivity which were demanded and which should be applied to the re-examination of contentious cases. The argument for new and additional appeal machinery, not solely in the hands of judges, is overwhelming, and we shall move to create such an institution in Committee.

Mr. Roy Beggs: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. Does he agree that, in view of the apprehension in regard to the case of the UDR Four in Northern Ireland, there is need to make sure that an early appeal is made possible in that case as well?

Mr. Hattersley: I confess—I apologise for the fault—that I do not know as well as perhaps I should the details of the case that the hon. Gentleman cites. But if it is, as I suspect, a case which is overlaid by two considerations —first, political pressure in the widest sense of the word, when people think that a conviction is right, and, secondly, the apprehension of public opinion, which is saying to the police and the courts, "You must catch somebody quickly for this terrible offence," thus putting great strain on the judicial procedure—it seems an ideal case to refer to the new appeal machinery that we intend to set up. If the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Committee that considers the measure, I hope that he will support us in that endeavour.
Another omission concerns remand. The Bill could have provided a perfect opportunity to reduce the number of men and women remanded in our prisons. A major reduction in numbers would come about—and could still come about without the Bill—if the Home Secretary implemented throughout Britain the rule that trial must begin within 112 days of committal.
I asked eight days ago, and I ask again today, because my question was not answered earlier, why the 112-day rule is not being applied throughout Britain. I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will explain either why it is not being applied throughout the country or when it will be applied, particularly in London and the south-east, where the remand problem is acute.
In addition to that obvious step, the Bill could and should reduce the number of remand prisoners by tightening the Bail Act 1976, and I offer some suggestions about how that Act should be tightened. Surety should be used only as a last resort, and then should be related to ability to pay; courts should find suitable accommodation for bail defendants with psychiatric problems; and all


individuals charged with non-imprisonable offences should be allowed bail unless they have a long history of absconding.
In 1977, remand accounted for 8·5 per cent. of the prison population; in the first quarter of this year it accounted for 20 per cent.—twice as much as 13 years ago, and meant that more than 10,000 men and women were in prison although they were innocent in law. They were often kept in prison awaiting trial for many months, but after trial, even of those who were convicted, only 52 per cent. of the men and 36 per cent. of the women were sent to prison, despite having been held in prison for weeks, sometimes months. The remand system in this country is a disgrace; it is a double disgrace because the Bill makes no attempt to tackle the problem head on.
One immediate step that we shall propose in Committee is the creation of a court inspectorate that examines and reports on the system and the way individual courts perform, and encourages in courts more concern for efficiency and less for judicial convenience.
The important matter of young remand prisoners has been mentioned. Some 60 per cent. of prison suicides are committed by remand prisoners, many of them young men. The most recent example was that of Simon Willerton, the young man who hanged himself in Armley. He was charged with a non-imprisonable offence, but was held in prison for 12 weeks. The simple fact is that he should never have been in prison. I take great hope and comfort from what I think the Home Secretary said earlier today. I assume that what he said in answer to my intervention means that he means, intends or at least hopes to implement the White Paper promise about getting young men out of remand prisons. If that is so, he will have our wholehearted support in that endeavour.
We applaud the emphasis that the Bill gives to community penalties, particularly when they can be related in the matter of compensation orders to providing restitution. Central to that emphasis are clause 7, which makes a probation order a sentence in its own right, and clause 10, which combines probation and community service orders. I have some sympathy for those combined penalties, subject to one major reservation that I shall set out later. I should like to see greater encouragement for fines and community service to be combined, as well as the other two combinations. It would be one way of meeting a problem described last week by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) during the debate on the Queen's Speech as white collar crime. In other countries, white collar crime is often combated by large fines combined with litter collection or other uncongenial and embarrassing tasks. There is much to be said for such experiments to be held in this country.
I have one other reservation about combined orders. Combined probation and community service orders could increase the prison population as a result of more frequent breaches. Without guidance, which a sentencing council could provide, combined orders might have the opposite effect to what the Government now intend. My reservations about probation becoming a sentence instead of the alternative to a sentence involves the best use of the probation service. Its role is not the administration of punishment, a word the Government often use when they should use the word "sentence". Probation officers are not

warders and turnkeys, supervising what clause 5 wrongly calls "restrictions on liberty"—meaning restrictions on liberty within the community. If supervising some sort of punishment becomes their task, their more positive work of assisting the courts and offenders who might benefit will be destroyed. That is one of our objections to clauses 11 and 12.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I thought that all sentences of the court were intended as a punishment. Will the right hon. Gentleman say which sentences of the court he thinks are not punishments? That is not merely a semantic point, but is important to his argument, as it will be to mine.

Mr. Hattersley: Of course, all sentences are punishment in part. In the debate about the prosecution of alleged war criminals, I spent the first part of my speech describing what I regarded as the seven principles by which alleged offenders were brought to trial, and the reasons why trial and sentencing were right. One of the classic reasons is punishment, another is retribution. My complaint is that the Government talk as though punishment were the be-all and end-all of the process, not one seventh of the intention, but six sevenths or the entire operation. It is a complicated point, but, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks about it, I think that he will understand.
I am opposed to language such as "restrictions on liberty." If it becomes the task of the probation service to administer such punishment, its more creative activities will be harmed and possibly destroyed. That is one of our objections to clauses 11 and 12, though not our principal reason for opposing.
Electric tagging would be a farce if it were ever implemented in this country. We have read encouraging reports in serious newspapers that, while the Government feel that they must save face by going ahead with the clauses, they have no intention of implementing the proposal. I hope that the Minister of State, as I understand it, the only true begetter of the scheme——

Mr. Patten: And believer.

Mr. Hattersley: —and true believer in the scheme. That is an admission which should be held against him when other offences are considered. I hope that the Minister of State, the true begetter of the scheme, will say when he winds up whether or not what we read and hope to find true is true.

Mr. Patten: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman now.

Mr. Hattersley: Please do.

Mr. Patten: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary explained at some length in his speech, to which I know the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) listened carefully, that electronic monitoring is part of the package of proposals that we intend to make available to the courts at the first available opportunity.

Mr. Hattersley: When will the first available opportunity be?

Mr. Patten: At the first available opportunity.

Mr. Hattersley: Now we have it—it is not being abandoned or held back; it will be implemented at the first


available opportunity, but nobody knows when that will be. That is enormously encouraging to those of us who are critical of the scheme.
Let me tell the Home Secretary, who speculated on the subject, why we are sceptical of the scheme. First, we know of the unreliability of the technology. We know of the poor results from the pilot schemes, which include not simply the fact that the vast majority of the 50 individuals tagged absconded, breached the terms of their bail or committed further offences. We know that many of those people alerted the system even though they were obeying the rules set down for them. We know that they alerted the system due to malfunctions of the instruments. That seems to be an extraordinary way to administer a criminal justice system, but there is worse than that.
Our fear is that, if tagging is introduced, it will not be used for men and women who would otherwise have gone to prison, which should be its only justification. It will not be regarded as safe enough for that. Tagging will be used for cases that would not have qualified for non-custodial sentences. It will be used for people who would have been out of prison anyway, and will be an added imposition on them.

Mr. Hind: rose——

Mr. Norris: rose——

Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way, but then I must get on. If I am not careful, I shall go on as long as the Home Secretary did.

Mr. Hind: rose——

Mr. Hattersley: I have given way to the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) once. I shall now give way to the hon. Gentleman from another constituency.

Mr. Norris: My right hon. Friend the Minister is not the only true believer. He is one of a great many who accept that, as long as the technology needs to be proven, there is little or no point in introducing such a system. I do not regard moving towards a fairly foolproof electronic system as any bar to using the device. What worries me is the assertion of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that the device will be used where custody would not otherwise be justified.
At paragraph 4.22 of the White Paper, specific reference is made to "any restriction on liberty" having to be justified. But the clear statement, with which I hope the right hon. Gentleman agrees, is that if restrictions are justified as part of a sentence,
most people would prefer electronic monitoring to a remand in custody or a term of imprisonment.
The White Paper seems specific about that. I have no doubt about the intentions of Ministers; what justification does the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook have for any different interpretation?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall return, to the points I was making on sentencing policy in general, when I thought that the hon. Member for Epping Forest was nodding. I am sorry to return to it again—without a sentencing council the judiciary is notoriously inclined to err on the side of over-severity by my terms and standards. On many occasions when I and other hon. Members would not use it, the system would be used by the judiciary.
I must press on, as I have already spoken for more than half an hour. In doing so I have set out our reservations

about four major areas of the Bill. I want to deal with three other important topics—early release, young offenders and privatisation. But, before doing that, I must make it clear that we agree entirely with large parts of the Bill, or at least we agree with them enough to give them a qualified welcome.
We strongly support the proposed changes in the rules of evidence as they affect the testimony of children. We welcome proposals that courts must consider a social inquiry before passing sentence. We strongly support the requirement that courts must give their reasons for awarding a custodial sentence. We believe so much in that principle that we think that it should be applied to defendants charged with indictable offences who have already served a prison sentence.
We support the establishment of unit fines, as set out in clause 16, and we believe that the principle should be applied to Crown courts as well as magistrates courts. However, I must express one reservation about the proposals on fines. I appreciate that wrongdoers, no matter how poor, may have to face a sentence of some sort, but I have grave misgivings about clause 21. If fines are deducted from income support, the poor will become even poorer and, putting aside arguments of compassion, that is undesirable as increased poverty may be a stimulus to another offence.
In Committee we shall propose two amendments that would help to solve the problem that I describe. First, we shall suggest that when a fine is imposed on a wage earner in an income support family the courts must, on the model of custodial sentencing, be required to explain why it has chosen a fine rather than another form of non-custodial sentence. Secondly, we shall press for at least the examination of a system in which fines could be literally worked off—weekends and evenings spent in socially useful employment with payment not to the worker but to the courts. That, too, is a scheme which applies in many other progressive countries and we should examine it in the United Kingdom.
We endorse a proposal for a reduction of the maximum penalties for theft and non-domestic burglary and for the introduction of automatic release in place of discretionary parole for prisoners serving less than four years. Part II of the Bill makes changes in the general parole system, largely based on the Carlisle report. We believe that there is much to be said for those proposals. Unless the new proposals —parole after half a sentence has been served, automatic for shorter sentences and discretionary for others—are accompanied by parallel reductions in the length of sentencing, there may be difficulties. The new proposals may well increase, not reduce, the prison population. That was certainly not Lord Carlisle's intention and I hope that it is not the Government's either.
I do not believe that clause 23—limited reductions in some sentences—will be enough to compensate for this potential increase. That is why I ask the Home Secretary to supply the figures, which we can then examine in detail. I believe that Lord Carlisle's proposals will work only if his scheme for sentencing is applied in full. He said in the House of Lords that his proposals should be accompanied by a determined effort by the judiciary and those in politics to reduce the length of sentences—particularly in the middle band. The Bill does not endorse that determined aim, but we shall attempt to achieve it in Committee—again, not least by proposing the creation of a sentencing council.
We shall also examine the desirability of early supervisory release being set at a third rather than a half of a sentence and we shall resist proposals that early release prisoners should be at risk of return to prison until the date when their full sentences would have been served.

Mr. Waddington: We are amazed by what we have just heard. Did the right hon. Gentleman say, entirely contrary to the suggestion by the Carlisle committee, that the Opposition propose that people should be released after serving one third of their sentence? The whole theme of the Carlisle proposal is that the sentence served should be more closely related to the sentence passed. Is that to be thrown overboard?

Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has picked and chosen from the Carlisle report himself, so he cannot complain if others do the same. There is much to be commended in the report, and that we commend and support, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not listening when I quoted Lord Carlisle's words about the reduction in sentences that has to go with this scheme. We shall examine all these matters in Committee.
My next remarks are directed specifically to the Home Secretary. We all agree, for agreement is easy enough, that parents should take responsibility for their children. But that is not a policy: it is a cliche. The real question is whether legislation will encourage that process of responsibility. Many Conservative Members who deny absolutely that the law can change attitudes to race apparently believe that laws can alter attitudes to parental responsibility. For my part, I doubt whether juvenile offenders' parents who do not come to court voluntarily will be made more responsible by compulsory attendance. We certainly support the maximum age for consideration at youth courts, as they are to be called, being increased to 18. We also welcome clause 49 which ends custodial sentences for 14-year-olds, but we would go far further. We would abolish prison department custody for juveniles.
Finally, I turn to the twin proposals—twin because they are related to ideology, although by nothing more—for private remand centres and private escort agencies. I have already called for emergency action to reduce the number of remand prisoners in our gaols. Obviously and by definition, emergency action should be taken immediately, but a fundamental review of remand should have waited for Lord Justice Woolf to answer the Government's questions about—I quote from the terms of reference—the 
number and conditions of remand prisoners".
Instead of waiting for their own inquiry to report, the Government have leapt in to answer the question with silly dogma.
The private remand centre has no rational justification. Whatever it achieves could be achieved in public centres if the Government willed that objective. Contradictions inherent in this policy can be demonstrated by two questions that I hope the Minister of State will be meticulous in answering. Are these private probation institutions to be subject to minimum standards of accommodation and treatment? Are minimum standards to be laid down for how they house and treat their prisoners? I assume that the answer must be yes, although

I see that the Minister is busy finding out. I believe that it would not be possible to allow private contractors to operate in this area without some regulation.

Mr. Patten: The right hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill.

Mr. Hattersley: I have a second question to which it seems the Minister will have to send for an answer as well. If minimum standards are to be laid down for private institutions, are they also to be laid down for Her Majesty's prisons? It seems strange that private contractors have to behave decently while prisons run by the Government can be as squalid——

Mr. Patten: It might be helpful if I answered the right hon. Gentleman now rather than later. It is clear that he has not conducted his reading of the Bill with due care and attention. From clause 65 onwards the right hon. Gentleman will find the answers to all his questions set out in the Bill. I urge him to look at it.

Mr. Hattersley: The Minister will not find the answer to my most important question set out there. I am happy to have the answer to my first question confirmed, because that means that he must now answer my second. I agree that the private institutions will have minimum standards. How does he justify their having minimum standards but not Her Majesty's prisons? [Interruption.] I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman another question and if he can tell me that the answer to it is in the Bill I shall be suitably humble and apologise.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Humble?

Mr. Hattersley: Not humble—suitably humble. That is quite a different thing.
To pursue a point made by the Home Secretary about the control of these prisons, could we hear more about the controller's status and his position under the law? Under what powers will he operate and how are we to define exactly what his role should be? I should like to hear more, too, about the related matter that is combined with the previous proposal, only because of the silly dogma on which it is based.

Mr. Patten: I know that this is not a Committee stage but a Second Reading debate, but if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the eight subsections of clause 68, he will find a precise reference to the powers of a director, controller or monitor.

Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will do better than that when he winds up the debate. I hope that he will also do better when he answers the other question that I put to him.
In the second inquiry set up by the Government, Lord Justice Woolf examined the best method of fulfilling escort duties and court manning commitments. The Home Secretary answered the question for him in clause 61. There are to be private escorts to and from prison. I understand well enough the burdens that escort duties impose on prison staff and the problems that they create for prison governors as they try to make the best of their overstretched resources. Private escorts are not, however, the answer. They will be badly trained, if trained at all. The record of private security companies taking the place of police officers demonstrates and proves that point.
I take my example from the ports where the transfer of those duties from police officers to private individuals has resulted in the ports being protected by underpaid and undertrained employees who do a cheap, bad job as compared with the regular police. I have no doubt that that pattern will be repeated with the privatisation of the prison escort system. Prison escorts will be given the status of constable. That is necessary, but it is also intolerable. One of the features of private security systems is that untrained and unprepared men and women are made constables in order to give a vestige of respectability to the privatisation process. I cannot imagine the consequences, with such people supervising prisoners, if there should be a mass break-out between court and prison. With untrained and unqualified private escorts who are unable to deal with prisoners, the potential consequences are horrendous.
The Bill contains much that is objectionable and much that is confused and contradictory. It also contains, in some areas, the seeds of sensible reform. We shall do our best to improve it in Committee. I am sure that the Home Secretary will be the first to understand, however, that it will be a long and arduous process. We must all hope that something better emerges from that process.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Once again the Government show that they are a radical, reforming Government. Once again they show that they are far from running out of steam. So much steam is contained in the Bill that one could talk for hours about it. The House knows that that is no idle threat by me, but I respect the rules of the House, the fact that so many other hon. Members want to speak in the debate and your presence, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I shall limit my observations to a few substantial issues. First, sentencing. The public want to be protected against the worst offenders. They must spend much time in prison. However, the worst offender does not mean just the most violent and dangerous offender. It also means those who are a perpetual menace because they continue to commit burglaries, to steal cars and other objects or to perpetrate serious City frauds involving large sums of money.
By all means judges should be made to state the reasons for custody. By all means probation reports should be required before custodial sentences are passed. However, we must ensure that resources are made available so that reports can be prepared quickly after a defendant has been found guilty. It is no use just saying that the probation service will perform; it already performs an outstanding service to society. A substantial increase in resources will be necessary if the probation service is to carry out all the work that is involved in the sentencing and after-care of offenders.
I am not happy about restricting the right of the courts to consider previous convictions only in very confined circumstances. It would often be impracticable for a sentencer to decide whether the "seriousness of the offence" applies or not in a particular case. It would also be undesirable in principle that a man's general propensity for evil should be ignored simply because it was a different kind of evil when last he offended.
Secondly, young offenders. I welcome the approach that seeks to keep young people as far as possible away from custodial sentences. Since 1983, I believe that the

number of juvenile offenders given custodial sentences has halved, without any increase in juvenile crime. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will confirm that. It is a substantial achievement of law and order under this Government. I understand of course that prisons can become universities of crime, but I am unhappy that we appear to have given up the concept of the short, sharp shock for youngsters as well as adults which deterred many offenders from committing crimes. Is there any evidence that the short, sharp shock has been a total failure? If so, where is it? I do not believe that judges feel that it has been a failure. The experience of the courts suggests that it served a useful purpose, although perhaps its effects were not quite so extensive as in the days of the short, sharp shock of the glass house. It is a pity that we are letting it slip from our grasp.
Thirdly, custodial release. I am sure that the public want sentences served to bear more resemblance to the sentence that was actually passed by the court. The public would be aghast to know just how soon after a sentence some criminals are now released. I am also sure that the requirement that at least half the sentence should be served is a distinct improvement on the third of the sentence that now is all that has to be served. But instead of abolishing the automatic remission of a third of the sentence, which has the effect of ensuring good behaviour, why do we not consider abolishing the often unjust parole system? It should be replaced by the requirement that the prisoner must work his way out of prison, by earning remission for training, effort, productivity and dedication while in custody. I cannot understand why an arbitrary decision on release is consistently thought to be better than shifting some of the responsibility for early release on to the shoulders of the prisoner.
It is well known that the parole system works unhappily from time to time and causes immense resentment among prisoners. Sometimes they cannot understand, because they are not told, why they cannot have parole. In many cases it relates to their family circumstances for which they are not to blame.
Fourthly, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) believes that a sentencing council would automatically right the wrongs of bias that he claims are proliferating throughout the judicial system. I do not accept that slur upon the judicial system. I do not accept that it ever happened but, if it did, there is no evidence that there is significant bias against black offenders or anybody else in our courts. If there is a predominance of a certain sort of offending resulting in a certain sort of sentence in a certain court area by, for example, black people, it is obvious that the sentences may have to be more substantial than in an area where that type of offending is less. Even if an element of bias existed, as is suggested by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, a sentencing council would have substantial disadvantages. It would delay sentencing and that is immensely undesirable. It would interfere with the need for the courts to respond to offences that are prevalent in a particular area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) said, it would be a step towards the sort of automatic sentencing which could be achieved much more easily by a machine or a computer placed on the judge's desk and which most of us would find totally undesirable.
The equality sought by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and the abolition of the racial bias that he perceives, wrongly, exists widely in the system is being


achieved by the statutory framework now being introduced into the system, by the increase in the number of people who will no longer serve prison sentences, by the activities of the Court of Appeal in giving formal guidance that is strongly indicative to judges and upon which they all rely before they sentence in most cases and by the Attorney-General's power to refer over-lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal. In addition, there is the limitation of the maximum penalty that reflects the seriousness of offences.

Mr. Hattersley: I am not intervening to argue with the hon. and learned Gentleman about the powers of a sentencing council because that will come later. I want to press him on the existence or otherwise of racial bias in the passionate belief that unless we recognise and acknowledge its existence we shall never overcome it. If it does not exist, how does the hon. and learned Gentleman account for the disproportionate number of black and Asian offenders who are remanded in custody rather than granted bail when that is related to the fact that, having been remanded in custody, they are then acquitted? It is not that they are more criminal, but that they are remanded in custody in high proportions and are acquitted thereafter.

Mr. Lawrence: The test whether a man can have bail usually depends on whether he has a fixed residential address, whether he is in work and whether it is likely that he will appear for trial. Unfortunately, in our society there are areas of Britain in which black people are not in work, do not have a fixed address and do not have anybody to put forward as surety. Those are the considerations that a judge or magistrate must take into account when considering whether it is appropriate to allow bail. It has nothing to do with racial prejudice but everything to do with the tests laid down to ensure that the person attends for trial.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the judge has to take into account whether a person is likely to abscond. Is he saying that black and Asian Britons are more likely to abscond than their white neighbours?

Mr. Lawrence: The right hon. Gentleman was not listening. When a judge is deciding whether a person should be given bail, one of the questions asked is whether he has a fixed address. Unfortunately—I hope that the time will come when things change—many of the blacks in our society——

Mr. Hattersley: And whites.

Mr. Lawrence: Yes, and whites. Many of the blacks in our society do not have fixed addresses, do not have jobs or sureties. The preponderance of that in some areas accounts for the high proportion of black people who are remanded in custody. It has nothing to do with the colour of their skin but everything to do with their ability to persuade a court that they will turn up for their trial. If he asked, the right hon. Gentleman would discover that the incidence of those who abscond is also very high in sections of the community where the magistrates say, "All right, we do not want to appear to be racist and we do not

want to use the lack of address, lack of work or lack of a surety to refuse bail. We shall grant bail on their own recognisance." Then, they are never seen again.

Ms. Diane Abbott: I apologise for not having been in the Chamber to hear the beginning of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, but I have heard the point that he is trying to make. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned the obvious distortion in the number of black people remanded in custody when related to the number of people who are acquitted. The hon. and learned Gentleman inferred that the black community was more likely to abscond or not to have a fixed address. I regret that more black people are not in the Strangers' Gallery to hear that extraordinary assertion. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me the statistical basis for saying that black defendants are more likely to abscond or not to have a fixed address or a job? Is there any statistical basis, or is the hon. and learned Gentleman airing his prejudices?

Mr. Lawrence: I have no prejudices in the matter and the hon. Lady should do me the credit of knowing that if there is anybody in this place who has no racial prejudice, it is me. I do not put myself above others but I put myself no lower than the hon. Lady. If the hon. Lady would apply her mind, she would see that I was defending the judicial system from the false accusation made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that the reason why coloured people are remanded in custody more frequently has something to do with the colour of their skin. Whether people are remanded in custody depends on whether they have a fixed address, work or sureties.

Mr. Archer: rose——

Mr. Lawrence: I shall not give way again because I am trying to make a relatively short speech and I do not want to be dragged down a blind alley that has nothing to do with the important matter that we are considering—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) is totally wrong and if she will keep quiet and listen to the rest of my speech, she will prevent herself from getting apoplexy.
Fifthly, children's evidence. I understand the wish to spare children the ordeal of giving evidence and the good sense of letting all children who can talk give admissible evidence. I understand, for obvious reasons, that the defendant should not be allowed to cross-examine the child witness. That should be done through an advocate. Those are all sensible and desirable improvements. However, I wonder whether we have got right the proposals for video-recording interviews with child witnesses. I understand the need for that in sexual and violent offences as it saves the child from a courtroom ordeal. Those of us who sit or practise in the courts understand that. However, we must not make it too difficult to test the evidence of children properly in examination-in-chief, where the jury is given an opportunity to see whether the child is likely to be telling the truth, or in cross-examination. We are dealing with a subject in which a jury's horror at the mere allegation of offences against children may be so great that the wrongful conviction of the innocent may occur more easily. I am thinking particularly of identification cases. Proper cross-examination is vital to test for the possibility of


mistakes. Children are no less likely to make mistakes than adults and we know that in a high proportion of criminal cases mistakes have been made about identification. Therefore, we have improved things by changes to our rules.
I am uneasy that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be able to do away with the important filtering stage of committal proceedings in the magistrates courts. The precedent for fraud cases, for which it was considered sensible to do away with committal proceedings, is irrelevant because it is mainly concerned with documentary evidence, which would be very boring, tedious and unlikely to be challenged. However, when considering the correct identification of someone who is alleged to have perpetrated a serious offence, we must treat the proposal that there need be no committal proceeding with more care and perhaps with some unease.
I am uneasy that a child witness should not be examined in chief on any matter that is dealt with in recorded testimony. As the Criminal Bar Association observed in its comments on the Bill, the child witness has still to be judged according to his testimony, and if his evidence is limited that testing becomes impossible. The child must be able to establish himself as a witness, and the jury must be able to see whether the accused person may be innocent from hearing sufficient evidence.
Sixthly, I welcome the first gentle steps towards the introduction of an element of privatisation into the prison system. Provided that the same standard of security continues to apply to escort services, there is no reason why the prison service should be burdened and restricted by the immense amount of time and money that is expended taking prisoners to and from court. An enormous amount of time, energy and expense is involved. If some of it can be shifted to the private sector, the prison service will be relieved of a burden that it does not like and can certainly do without.
Provided security is maintained, I see no reason why there should not be an experiment with the private operation of a remand prison, where, after all, a high proportion of prisoners are presumed innocent and do not therefore require the same supervision or state control that most of us feel is necessary where there has been a sentence of imprisonment. If ever a matter were suitable for an experiment, this is it, and I commend it.
Seventhly, as most crime is committed by teenagers, it is wholly reasonable that parents should be made responsible for the wrongdoing of their children. I therefore welcome the measures to enforce some of that parental responsibility.
Eighthly, I welcome the rationalisation of community sentences.
Ninthly, I see no reason why those who would otherwise be remanded in custody should not be given the opportunity of being tagged while they are on remand if they so wish. Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State confirm that the pilot scheme met with some success and that it represents a reasonable expenditure of resources? Opposition Members are anxious to ensure that as few people as possible are kept in prison. Here is a positive measure that would be voluntary. If a prisoner feels humiliated or degraded by being tagged and would rather be in prison, the choice is his. It is such a sensible measure that I am sure that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was wrong to oppose it.
Finally, in my view and that of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and the majority of people outside, one positive step that could be taken to reduce the incidence of serious crime, particularly the killing of innocent people, is the restoration of capital punishment. There is no such provision in the Bill because the Government have always taken the view that that is a matter not for Government but for private conscience. I intend to table a new clause to give the House the opportunity of reconsidering the matter, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that that debate is taken on the Floor of the House so that the wishes of the people, who know as much about deterrence as any expert, can be taken properly into account and so that they may know that hon. Members take the matter seriously indeed.

Mr. Peter Archer: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made several comments that I found startling. When the Minister replies, we shall listen with care to see how many of them he endorses. I shall refer to some of them a little later, but I was particularly startled when he asked for evidence that recent Government policies, particularly the short, sharp shock, had failed. If he has a few minutes to spare later, he and I can study the criminal statistics since 1983.
I hope that I shall be forgiven if I confess to a feeling of deja vu. I have long lost count of the number of Criminal Justice Bill debates in which I have participated, but they all have two characteristics in common. The first is that they repeal provisions which in an earlier Bill were hailed as the complete answer to crime. I remember when the partly suspended sentence was greeted as a great penological breakthrough and was duly incorporated in the Criminal Law Act 1977. I do not think that it was a mistake. There are circumstances where it may be an appropriate step, but clause 4 despatches it painlessly into history.
The second characteristic is that each Criminal Justice Bill is a dog's breakfast of assorted provisions as Home Office officials clear their desks of the proposals that have accumulated since the last Criminal Justice Bill. Any connecting thread is invented long after the contents of the Bill have been assembled.

Mr. Patten: Withdraw. Monstrous.

Mr. Archer: I make no comment on the right hon. Gentleman, for whom we have much respect and who does his best, but the Home Office does impose constraints on its Ministers. All I was saying is that it does not facilitate Second Reading debates.
I should perhaps add a third characteristic. A Criminal Justice Bill is usually a compromise between popular slogans and flat reality. The hon. and learned Member for Burton said that the Bill is full of steam. I would have said that there is a certain amount of wind in it rather than steam. I suspect that the compromise in this Bill is between the ringing declaration of the war on crime, which earned the Home Secretary a standing ovation at the Conservative party conference, and the need to reduce the prison population, on which everyone who has attempted to think about the subject, including those who drafted the White Paper, is agreed.
That duality of purpose gives rise to provisions which at best sit uneasily with one another and at worst are


simply inconsistent. We are told in clause 2 that the punishment must be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence—a principle which can be delivered in dramatic terms at a party conference. If it means anything in clause 2, according to the ordinary rules of construction of the English language, it means that every sentence must be a tariff sentence and that there should be no individualised acts of mercy to take account of individual circumstances. In other words, the court cannot take account of mitigation.
I cannot believe that that is the intended meaning of the clause, otherwise the Bill would abolish probation and community service. I think that it was intended to mean that no one should be imprisoned for longer than he deserves, except in the specific circumstances outlined in the clause. But that would sound much less robust from a party platform.
While we are on that subject, we find that, under clause 4, section 28 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 is to be repealed. Our unpopular friend, the extended sentence, is to be laid to rest. Now people are to be sentenced for what they have done, not for what it is feared that they may do. A fundamental principle of retributive justice is re-established: no one should receive a harsher sentence than he or she deserves. But scarcely is it carried out of the back door when, in clause 2(2)(b), as bold as brass and scarcely disguised, it comes swaggering back in through the front door.

Mr. Waddington: With respect, I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that the extended sentence which followed preventive detention provided machinery whereby someone could be given longer than the maximum sentence laid down by statute for an offence. That is what we are talking about in the case of an extended sentence. In clause 2 we are talking about the circumstances in which someone can get a longer sentence than that which would normally be justified by the offence, but still a sentence within the absolute maximum laid down by statute for that offence. It has nothing to do with extended sentences.

Mr. Archer: In each case, the statute prescribes a maximum and then says that, in certain circumstances, one can exceed the maximum.

Mr. Waddington: No. With respect, we are careful to say in clause 2 that, although one can impose a longer sentence than that justified by the gravity of the offence, in the interests of protecting the community that sentence must still be within the statutory maximum for that offence.

Mr. Archer: In each case, the principle is that, in certain circumstances, someone may receive a sentence that is harsher than he or she would otherwise have deserved, not because of the circumstances of the offence, but because of other considerations. No doubt we shall debate that principle in Committee.

Mr. Patten: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be on the Standing Committee.

Mr. Archer: What did the right hon. Gentleman say?

Mr. Patten: I was only reminiscing to myself from a sedentary position, but I have been lured to the Dispatch

Box by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I was reminiscing about his performance in the Standing Committee on the last Criminal Justice Bill. I said sotto voce that I hoped that he would not be on this one, because I remember a few holes below the waterline. It sounds as though the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making threatening noises about serving again.

Mr. Archer: Far be it from me to hole the right hon. Gentleman below the waterline, but I think that in Standing Committee we might cause a certain amount of damage to his gun turrets.
The White Paper, with its promising title "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", begins by announcing that it proposes
a coherent legislative framework for sentencing".
That sounds hopeful. Perhaps there is to be a clear, logical set of proposals which the courts can have in mind. Perhaps it will be simpler, without a multiplicity of technicalities, to trip the courts, which have enough to occupy their minds getting through their lists, doing justice in individual cases, taking account of all the things they are told about the offence and the offender, without having to look out for an array of trip-wires.
Perhaps this legislative framework will clarify the relationship between the legislature, which lays down policy; the Court of Appeal, which offers guidelines from time to time, but understandably on a sparing basis; and the courts, which have to consider the individuals appearing before them. The Court of Appeal, of course, deals only with sentences which at least to some already appear too long, so it deals with a fairly self-selecting group of sentences.
In the event, the Bill does not really improve on the Mikado's rule of thumb that the punishment should fit the crime and, as in every Criminal Justice Bill, the trip-wires are moved about and rearranged, just as we were getting used to where they were left after the last Criminal Justice Bill.

Mr. Waddington: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that this Criminal Justice Bill differs from other ones because it builds on the success of other Bills which were passed only a short time ago? The central theme in the Bill is that we should extend over the whole age range the disciplines which were imposed on the courts in terms of young offenders in the 1982 and 1988 Criminal Justice Acts. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that those two Acts have been conspicuously successful—although not agreed by the Labour party—in that the number of young people sent to prison has decreased, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) pointed out.

Mr. Archer: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing with the restrictions on imposing custodial sentences, he certainly will not face any objection from me, nor has he incurred any objection from Labour Members. If the Bill had confined itself to that provision, that would have been the end of the debate—unhappily, it did not.
The Bill fails to introduce greater consistency in sentencing. There may be reasons for the inconsistencies between Wood Green and Mold, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred, but those who have considered it find it puzzling. The Bill offers no solution. Is there not a case for the sentencing council proposed by my right hon.
Friend? It could offer carefully considered guidelines with a freedom which is not open to the Court of Appeal in individual cases. The hon. and learned Member for Burton, who is in his place but not really with us, was talking complete nonsense when he said that somehow this is to cast aspersions on the courts. To say that the courts cannot do more than a court can be expected to do is not to cast an aspersion.
Would this really be a total breach of the separation of powers, particularly if the sentencing council consisted primarily of judges, as I hope it would, although I hope that it would co-opt probation officers and a few academics, and possibly a Home Office Minister? I believe that many judges would welcome that assistance.
The proposal in clause 48 is that parents of young offenders may be bound over to exercise proper control, as though they were the criminals. That may have some populist appeal, but it raises some fundamental questions in theory and in practice. The Home Secretary is really proposing that parents who may have done their best and who do not understand where they went wrong—which he said was not his intention—are to be branded as a criminal family. There is some authority, at least in the Old Testament, for the proposition that the sins of the father should be visited on the children, but I know of no authority for the converse proposition.
If someone is liable to forfeit a large sum of money, surely it should be crystal clear what that person is required to do in order not to forfeit it. I found the Home Secretary's reply to my intervention unconvincing. How are parents to know what they must do not to be found to have failed to exercise proper control? Are they to watch their sons and daughters every waking moment? Are they to refuse to let them out of the house? Are they to follow them when they go out? If there is any room for misunderstanding, they may—in addition to all the other distress which they will suffer from a further conviction of a son or daughter—suffer what to them will appear as a personal fine. I hope that they will not be required in some way to produce evidence of the control which they have exercised over their children. That will do more harm than good.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Often one of the problems is that the two parents have different views on what exactly is the right behaviour for a youngster, and those conflicting views often cause difficulty for the youngster. Surely it is important that both parents know exactly what the courts require so that they can come to an agreement on how they will supervise their son or daughter.

Mr. Archer: I agree with my hon. Friend. All of us who have reared teenage children know that being too inquisitive can sometimes cause more problems than it solves.
Of course, the White Paper is right—we should take account of the needs of victims, actual and potential. I believe that the courts are making good use of compensation orders. There may be a case for considering how we could involve victims further in the disposal of criminal cases. And we need to protect potential victims. Surely the purpose of penal policy is primarily to reduce crime, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said. If it could be shown that longer sentences had an appreciably deterrent effect, they would

be a positive contribution to reducing crime, but we seem to be rather stronger on strident slogans than on hard evidence.
No one now believes that prisons have a reforming effect, especially when every attempt at education or at training is frustrated by the desperate undermanning of the prison service. But the public will not benefit if those who serve sentences return to liberty coarsened, brutalised and embittered, and having had the benefit of a refresher course on crime from other criminals. If our object were to maximise crime, we might design institutions exactly like the majority of our existing prisons. I do not believe that privatisation is an answer to that problem.
If the Government were serious about reducing crime, they should invest more resources in better public lighting, in replacing subways with pelican crossings, and in subsidising security locks and burglar alarms for elderly people. They could even provide the police authorities with the resources for which they are asking.
I shall not weary the House with what I have said many times before, but year after year the West Midlands police authority has calculated carefully the additional manpower it requires to carry out its statutory duties. Year after year, without explanation or argument, the Home Office has authorised only a small fraction of that additional manpower.

Mr. John P. Smith: The Home Secretary implied earlier that there are more, not fewer, policemen on the streets of Britain. I recently had the honour of going out with our police in the seaside town of Barry to see how they deal with a crime rate which has reached epidemic proportions and which is affecting the quality of life of tens of thousands of my constituents. I was horrified to see how many policemen were on duty on a Saturday night. The figure is so bad that I am not at liberty to quote it because if the criminals in our town knew how many police were on duty they would riot.

Mr. Archer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right and I wish that the Home Office would listen to police authorities when they tell it what manpower they need.
Most importantly of all, the Government should reflect on the fact that the most effective deterrent to crime for the potential offender is the disapproval of his peer group. Teenagers in deprived areas are encouraged to turn to crime because other teenagers in the area regard it as a status symbol. If such teenagers can be won over to the side of law and order, that would be the greatest protection for the victims of crime. The places where the environment is best protected and where vandalism is at a minimum are where local teenagers have been enlisted to clean up the area and will, therefore, ensure that their commitment is not wasted.
If the Government re-read the Scarman report, if they read "Faith in the City" for the first time, if they spared more resources for youth services before the young person. is on bail and if they encouraged school teachers to believe that their extra-curricular activities were properly valued, they could achieve a multiplicity of objectives. They could reduce the cost of vandalism, they could reduce the prison budget, they could save the time of the courts, and they could help to safeguard potential victims of crime.
The position would be helped if potential offenders saw the penal system as fair. It is not true, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton asserted, that the colour of


one's skin makes no difference to how one is treated in the penal system. I will not repeat the statistic to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook referred, but if, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton said, the problem is that the majority of coloured people are unable economically to comply with the conditions required by the Bail Act 1976, would not that in itself be a reason for disquiet and would not it mean that the colour of a person's skin was related to his treatment in the penal system?

Mr. Lawrence: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is taking a pretty tough line with me. When he sits as a recorder, on what basis does he consider whether a person should be granted bail?

Mr. Archer: I apply the conditions in the Bail Act. However, I find that a fair number of black people are unable to comply with the conditions in the Act because they are homeless, jobless or have been discriminated against. If the hon. and learned Member for Burton finds that satisfactory——

Mr. Lawrence: rose——

Mr. Archer: I must end this dialogue as I have gone on for too long.

Mr. Lawrence: Answer the question.

Mr. Archer: I am prepared to debate the matter with the hon. and learned Gentleman on another occasion.

Mr. Lawrence: rose——

Mr. Archer: If there is no other solution, I will give way.

Mr. Lawrence: In the circumstances to which he has referred, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give bail for serious offences, such as mugging?

Mr. Archer: I ask that the Government direct their mind to the fact that for economic reasons, among others, fewer black people than white people obtain bail. If we can agree on that, we may have made some progress and perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Burton will now talk to members of his own Front Bench.
I understand that the Home Secretary cannot achieve all those objectives without the co-operation of his colleagues in the Government. He is not the Prime Minister—although, by the end of this week, who knows? He could try to persuade his colleagues that there are more cost-effective ways of investing money in crime reduction than to keep offenders in prison without parole for longer periods. If he did so, he would not earn a standing ovation at the next Conservative party conference, but he might earn a place in history, and he would certainly earn the thanks of my constituents.

Mr. Michael Shersby: As the House knows, I am the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. I wish to declare that interest in participating in the debate.
The Bill is long and complex. I am not a lawyer, but I welcome some of its provisions and I have enjoyed listening to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley,

West (Mr. Archer) and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who are lawyers. We all benefit from hearing their views.
I give a general welcome to the new framework for the sentencing of offenders. I support the provisions which are designed to protect the public from serious harm by offenders and the powers given to the courts in clause 2 which provide that the length of the custodial sentence is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. My constituents have been pressing for longer sentences for violent crime and for sexual offences. They will be pleased that a Crown court may pass sentence up to the maximum for the offence. The House knows that the Government also wish to reduce the prison population and to deal with less serious offenders by means of non-custodial sentences.
However, on behalf of the police, I must say that in the opinion of the Police Federation—which I share—there is one offence for which there should be a mandatory custodial sentence. It should be passed on those convicted of assaults that have occasioned actual bodily harm to a police officer in the exercise of his duty. The federation called for that sentence at its 1987 central conference, reflecting the increasing concern among the police about the number of assaults, which is escalating to an unacceptable level. I call again today for a mandatory sentence for those who attack the protectors of the public so that such people may be in no doubt that if they attack a police officer they will go to prison.

Sir Charles Irving: Is not everyone entitled to that protection? Should it be restricted only to police officers?

Mr. Shersby: I note my hon. Friend's point. I know, as I am sure he does, that the Home Office does not generally like mandatory sentences because it is concerned about the possible pressure to apply them to other offences. My hon. Friend has made the point well for me. However, if the Home Office view prevails, there must be at least one exception if the increasing number of assaults on the police is to be stopped. The federation is disappointed by the absence of such a mandatory sentence, so I will, therefore, press for its inclusion at later stages of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will give further thought to the serious problem of assaults on police officers and that he will consider most carefully the possibility of accepting such a provision being introduced into the Bill.
I recognise that the policy of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is not to encourage custodial sentences where community sentences can be used as an alternative. It will be interesting to see the extent to which probation orders and community service orders, or a combination of the two, or the proposed curfew order, as well as the supervision order or a period at an attendance centre, will be satisfactory alternatives to custodial sentences. I am sure that it is right to try them. There may be problems in implementing them, however, and one of the problems may be the additional burdens placed upon the police.

Mr. John P. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the ballot for the leader of the majority group in the House has now finished, do you think that the House should be suspended while we discover who is now to be the Prime Minister of Britain?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I think that we would be better advised to get on with the debate.

Mr. Shersby: Before I was interrupted by that non-point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was saying— this is an important matter and I hope that Opposition Members are listening—that it is important that the resource implications for the police in carrying into effect non-custodial orders are given the most careful consideration.
Clause 3 makes provision for pre-sentence reports to assist courts in deciding whether to impose a custodial sentence. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will tell the House who will keep details of previous offences that must be taken into account. It is not always easy to provide that information.
Clause 8 deals with probation and discharge. I am somewhat puzzled by subsection (2). Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will explain why payment of sums awarded by way of damages for injury or compensation for loss shall not be included among the additional requirements of a probation order.
The introduction of curfew orders and electronic tagging has already caused a good deal of discussion. I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that the federated ranks of the police need to be convinced of the merits of the innovation, about which they are less than enthusiastic. They take the view that it is difficult to operate and that the recent experiment was not particularly successful, due in no small measure to the ineffectiveness of the technology that is involved. Concern has been expressed to me also about the additional burden which could fall on the police, where manpower is already stretched to the limit. It will always be the police who have to pick up the responsibility for dealing with curfew orders and electronic tagging when the system goes wrong. They will have to bear the burden. Why have the Government decided to introduce these measures when the only information that the federation has from the forces that have tried them is that they are not especially successful?
Having made those comments in a spirit of friendly and constructive criticism, I say to the House generally that the police greatly welcome the inclusion in the Bill of part III, and especially the provision that evidence given by children can be unsworn. Equally welcome are the provisions in clauses 42 to 45, which will enable the use of video recordings of testimony of child witnesses.
The federation is slightly disappointed, however, that children will be required to give evidence under cross-examination via a live video link at the time of trial. The House will recall that the advisory group on video evidence, which was chaired by Judge Pigot, recommended that
arrangements should be made to hold a preliminary hearing in informal surroundings out of court as soon as practicable.
It may be that I have not fully grasped what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said when he commented on this part of the Bill during his opening remarks. If I have misunderstood what he said, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will correct me. I wonder why the use of video recordings made out of court in informal surroundings is not included in the Bill. After all, the Pigot inquiry took evidence from every interested party, and it was unanimous in its recommendations.
I welcome the proposals in clauses 46 to 48 to require the attendance of parents at proceedings which involve their children when they, the children, are under the age of 16 years. The requirement is coupled with the power of courts to require the parents of 16 and 17-year-olds to pay their financial penalties, plus the power to bind over the parents of offenders who are under the age of 18 years to take proper care and exercise proper control of their children, and to fine parents who refuse unreasonably to be bound over. These provisions represent a powerful new set of deterrents to juvenile delinquents.
I listened with great care to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West when he referred to the innovations which I have just mentioned. It seems that the power of the courts to deal with parents who have unreasonably refused to be bound over will provide a good deal of flexibility within the system and should not lead to undue problems. The federation welcomes the innovations and hopes that they will be successful.
Having complimented my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on the parts of the Bill which either the police or I, or both of us, welcome, I turn to the more controversial new provisions for court security officers, and for escort duties to be carried out by prisoner custody officers. It is right that I should tell the House that the federation is uneasy about these important duties being carried out by the private sector. The federation's main objection—it is a staff federation and the House will understand how it feels—is that the public may not feel as secure if these duties are not carried out by well-trained, tried and trusted officers who have operated successfully for a long time in the public sector.
When my right hon. Friend the Minister of State replies, I hope that he will tell the House what training the officers will receive. I hope also that he will outline the vetting that will have been carried out before their recruitment and appointment by whoever will be responsible for that job. I understand that in the borough which comes within my constituency the body responsible will be the borough council. How will these officers be accountable as police officers are accountable? These are important questions, and they need to be answered if the police are to move away from their present position of unease about the proposed changes. The public must be clear that they will not be put at risk as a result of the changes. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us what estimate has been made of the reduction in public expenditure that will be achieved by the proposed contracting out.
The federation is concerned about the concept of remand prisons being contracted out to the private sector. Its concern centres on the training and vetting that is to take place of the individuals who will be engaged and on the safety of the public. The director of a contracted-out remand centre is to be a prisoner custody officer. The new controller is to be a Crown servant. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will give more information to the House, either today or later, about the sort of training and the background that these individuals will have when it comes to them carrying out their responsible duties.
The duties are set out clearly in the Bill, but the Bill does not go into the detail which hon. Members will need if they are properly to assess the way in which the centres will work. There has been much criticism in recent months about some of the private security companies that operate.


That has not been confined to the docks. There is a general feeling of unease. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to set that right.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is it not a fact that unless there is regulation of the private security industry, which the Government have been shy to introduce prior to the Queen's Speech, in the Queen's Speech or in the Bill, cowboy operators will be able to tender for the contracts, with dreadful results? Regulations must accompany the proposed innovations.

Mr. Shersby: That concern must be addressed and set aside. I supported the private Member's Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). There should be independent regulation of the security industry, and I am not ashamed to state that in this debate.
I welcome the Bill, which contains many good things. I wish it well in Committee and I hope to have an opportunity to contribute to it again later and to put forward proposals on matters that are of great concern to the police, particularly the question of assault.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) referred to the practical concerns of the police with regard to escort duties and the contracting out of remand centres. Several issues of principle are also troubling people. Those who are responsible for depriving a citizen of liberty should also ensure that the responsibility for the custody of those citizens lies in the hands of the state.
The Bill marks an important step forward for our criminal justice system. It is a major Bill and not all of it is uncontroversial. However, it provides a major change in a healthy direction, which should have a practical effect on sentencing in particular and move us closer to a society that is less dependent on custodial sentencing as the normal response to crime.
In particular, I welcome the requirement to give reasons for custodial sentences. I also welcome the proposal that there should be a pre-sentence report in the hands of the sentencer before sentence is announced. I particularly welcome the extension of the unit fine experiment to magistrates courts relating the penalties imposed to a defendant's ability to pay. However, I do not know why the Government have not extended that principle to Crown court proceedings, and perhaps the Minister will comment on that when he replies.
Having begun in that vein, it is inevitable in our customary adversarial proceedings that I should focus on the Bill's deficiencies and also refer to the matters that are omitted from the Bill. After the Home Secretary's rather robust remarks at the Conservative party conference, about victims, I was rather surprised that the Bill contained nothing to give effect to his proposals. I was surprised that the Bill contained nothing to ensure that victims know whether those alleged to have been responsible for their suffering have been caught and, if so, when and where they would be tried. At the Conservative party conference, the Home Secretary also spoke about ensuring that the courts were fully informed of the loss suffered by a victim and that the courts would have the necessary facts to make proper compensation orders. The

Bill offered an apt opportunity to give effect to those proposals, which no doubt the Home Secretary believes to be important.

Mr. John Patten: With regard to victims, back in February or March my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary issued a victim's charter, which contains a list of questions that are subject to consultation at the moment—the victim support world and others will give us their views about them. We have not yet reached a stage when we can form conclusions and so ensure that the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be in such a state of grace as to be ready for inclusion in a Bill such as this. However, those matters are very much on our agenda for the future. I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman's views in due course.

Mr. Maclennan: It is becoming increasingly doubtful whether the right hon. Gentleman will have a future of that kind in ministerial office, so some of us will take that assurance with a grain of reserve.

Mr. Patten: You are a boring old windbag.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister sounds rather like the drone to my bagpipes.
The Bill marks an important step towards reducing the use of custodial sentences for less serious offences, and that cannot happen too soon. I want to refer once again to a serious incoherence in the legal framework of our criminal law, which the Bill, for all its virtues, does not systematically tackle.
Conservative Home Secretaries have a propensity to think up new crimes and to increase penalties to deal with every social evil. Following the recent Calcutt report on privacy, there was a proposal for a new crime of criminal trespass. Following the Taylor report on the Hillsborough stadium disaster, there were proposals for new crimes to add to the already quite remarkable battery of public order offences that were recently enacted. Following the Strangeways riot, the Home Secretary proposed a new crime of prison mutiny. All those proposals may lead to comforting headlines in the tabloid press such as "New Crackdown on Crime", but they do nothing to ensure that our criminal law matches the settled view of society and therefore the relative seriousness of different forms of anti-social behaviour.
Why have the Government taken no step towards the codification of the criminal law, the case for which has been advocated for many years, which was first put in hand by my right hon. Friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead in 1968 and on which the Law Commission has been working? The Law Commission produced an extremely important report, No. 177, with a draft criminal code Bill attached, together with a detailed commentary on the proposals. It is the most exhaustive and authoritative work on the rationalising of our criminal justice system, but it has been almost ignored by the Government and by Parliament. I referred to it inevitably briefly in my contribution to the debate on the Loyal Address.
That codification should commend itself to the Government as the best starting point for the overhaul of our criminal law. The former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, commended the Law Commission's report and said that it could save a great deal of anxiety, obscurity, consumption of judicial time and so of costs. I attach particular importance to the reduction that speedier trials


would make in the number of remanded prisoners in our overcrowded gaols. The proper parliamentary procedure for scrutinising such a proposed code would be the establishment of a pre-legislative committee to take evidence and report to Parliament on its contents. Until such a step is taken, our system in England and Wales will continue to suffer from the patchwork of more than 7,200 separate criminal offences being added to inconsistently. That is the major omission, not only from the Bill but from the Government's approach to the reform of criminal law.
However, several matters also merit being raised, and they flow directly from the Bill. Paramount among them is the absence of discussion of the necessary additional resources that must be made available to the probation service in particular and to the police if the Government's objectives in respect of non-custodial sentencing are to be achieved. Part of the patchwork of the inconsistency of sentencing may be explainable in terms of the patchwork of local resources in different areas. The non-availability, for example, of bail hostels in some cases may make it more difficult for sentencers such as the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) to deal with such matters in the manner that plainly is the objective of both sides of the House. Resources are integral to the success of the Government's proposals and it would be helpful to hear more than a few pious words from the Minister of State on that subject.
In an exchange between the two Front Benches, there was a rather helpful discussion of the possibility of taking forward the concerns that have been widely expressed about the existence of racial discrimination within our criminal justice system. Frankly, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is a little unreal in his approach. I found the Home Secretary's attitude in response to my intervention in his speech a good deal more encouraging than that of his hon. and learned Friend. The case for a declaratory provision in the Bill is overwhelming —not simply one that sets out the law of the land as it is, but one that sets out the law of the land as it should be. It should go further and provide statutory requirements to monitor what is happening and to back up the provisions of the general principle.
I share the view that has been expressed on several occasions in the House, that the greatest defect in our sentencing structure at the moment is the inability of the Court of Appeal to produce not uniformity but some coherence in sentencing. The establishment of a sentencing council has merit. It would not supplant the role of judges, but it would help judges. That body would be not wholly judicial in composition, but would involve the participation of many who have knowledge of other parts of the criminal system and, indeed, lay people who could bring to bear upon matters public perceptions of sentencing needs and requirements.
In so far as it deals with problems in our prisons, the Bill does so only indirectly. It proposes little that would directly ameliorate the conditions of our outmoded prisons. I do not entirely blame the Government for that, for they are rightly waiting for the report of Lord Justice Woolf's inquiry following the Strangeways riots. But, given that the Government are holding out on several important reforms, they have decided to do one or two things of extremely doubtful use, not least the decision to allow the contracting-out of remand centres to the private sector, which seems at best irrelevant and, at worst, a

surrender of the proper responsibility of the state. The administration of justice and the deprivation of liberty should not in principle be contracted out.
Comparable criticisms may be made of the proposals to privatise the prison escort service. I, like others, know well of the diversion of resources that the present arrangements cause, but the Government have embarked on the wrong solution to the problem. It is hard to justify the view that the Home Secretary propounded, that the experience of curfew and tagging has been successful. It has been described by penal reformers as a fiasco. I am bound to say that it has a minimal part to play at this stage in our penal system. If there is a case for continuing the experiment, that is all that one can say in favour of it. I do not think that it should have gone further until there was greater evidence of how it could work in practice. The Government sometimes claim credit for being essentially practical and take some pride in not having a principled approach, but, on practical grounds, I do not think that tagging has been demonstrated to work effectively.
There is an important confusion that the Home Secretary did not altogether succeed in dispelling. Clause 3 deals with whether previous convictions should be taken into account when dealing with a sentence before the court—[Interruption.] I sense a certain excitement, which, I am bound to say, has very little to do with the remarks that I am making.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I am surprised that there should be such excitement on the Benches at this time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will continue.

Mr. Maclennan: I am glad to have my view entirely endorsed by you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton made a powerful and important point, and I hope that the Minister of State will deal with it. Therefore, I shall make that point in my way, too. I refer to the avoidance of committal proceedings in cases involving sexual offences and violence against children, which will seriously curtail the rights of the accused. I have seen the argument of the Criminal Bar Association that the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions should not be capable of delegation, and that case requires to be answered.
The Bill makes extensive proposals to change the powers and operation of parole and early release. I shall make only a couple of brief points. The most important requirement is that parole should be reconstituted with proper regard to due process safeguards. Prisoners should be entitled to be heard and have legal representation. The Bill does not make those proposals. They seem to be a necessary part of our system. Unless the Bill's proposals for parole are accompanied by wider reductions in maximum sentences than are advanced, there is a serious risk that the prison population will rise.
The public is undoubtedly most concerned about the ineffectiveness of the Government's measures to prevent crime. The success or otherwise of the Bill will, to a degree, be judged by whether it contributes to a reduction in crime. The single most important step that the Government could take to reduce crime and the fear of crime would be to strengthen measures for youth crime prevention. Young people under 21 commit almost half all recorded crimes and three quarters of the burglaries in this country. The peak age of offending for boys is between 15 and 18.


Young men and women are the most frequent victims of crime, contrary to the general perception that the elderly in our society are the most vulnerable. That perception was shared by the electors of Eastbourne who were reluctant to open their doors after 7.30 in the evening. I assume that the Minister of State has recently had that experience.
There is a considerable need to tackle the problem of youth crime more systematically than the Government have tackled it. We need greater positive recreational training and employment opportunities to be co-ordinated locally with the young themselves. Volunteers, as well as paid workers, should play an important part in that task.
The Minister is probably already familiar with the experience of the French Government at central, regional and local level and their striking success in tackling the problem of youth crime. They have programmes of summer activities for the young; youth centres in cities and towns; the positive involvement of ethnic minorities in mainstream social and sporting activities; and projects that are targeted at job acquisition, social integration and confidence building, as well as local crime prevention schemes. Those measures have had dramatic effects and the French crime statistics show encouraging downward trends, especially for the offences that are most often committed by the young.

Mr. Sheerman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is wasting his breath making those points to this Government, because the schemes in France to which he referred involve a lot of money and resources and are locally controlled—two things to which the Government would never agree?

Mr. Maclennan: It would cost a great deal less to do those things than to keep people in prison. The Government should address that issue as a matter of practicality if they want to make public expenditure savings. Of course, I do not commend such measures only on those grounds, but because I believe that they would be effective in the interests of the young and of society.
The Bill deals with some matters affecting young people, especially—and controversially—the new provisions on parental responsibility. The clauses that increase the sanctions against the parents of young offenders are, in my view, mistaken and probably unworkable and, in their punitive nature, they are certainly unwise. The Home Secretary, who sometimes betrays a lack of awareness about what is going on in his own Department, should have noticed the findings of John Graham, which were published in Home Office research bulletin No. 26 of 1989, which states:
Since the ability of families to function effectively is thought to be a crucial determinant in preventing juvenile delinquency, there is an increasingly pressing need to determine how policies to support families and parents can be developed.
Clause 21, which provides that the courts may apply to have fines recovered by deduction from income support, puts precisely the kind of pressure on families that the research of the Home Office itself shows to be likely to lead to delinquency. If such deductions are tolerable, they should be considered, as in cases of rent default, only if they are voluntarily agreed by the defendant——

Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not want to interrupt

the hon. Gentleman's speech, but there has been a happening outside the Chamber, of which we are all aware, and which has enormous implications, especially for the people of Scotland. Parts of the Bill relate to the ability to pay certain fines. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made part of his plea for the leadership of his party the question of the ability to pay the poll tax. There is clearly no majority in the House for that tax, which was imposed on the people of Scotland by an Act that was passed in this Parliament in 1987.I take it that the Government and the Opposition will move immediately to have that Act, which was imposed on the people of Scotland, removed from the statute book. We should take immediate steps to suspend the House——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Douglas: In view of the fact that people in Scotland are being poinded——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. That is not the matter before the House. I call Mr. Maclennan.

Mr. Maclennan: rose——

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Have you had notice from the Leader of the House to announce the verdict of the election for the Conservative leader, in which the Prime Minister got 204 votes and the challenger 152? In the circumstances—in the absence of any clear Government—is not it time that the Leader of the House came to the House, announced a dissolution and called a general election?

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I can hear only one hon. Member at a time.

Mr. Norris: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I quite appreciate the excitement on Opposition Benches—there is a fair amount on Conservative Benches. Anticipating catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and knowing of your experience on the stage, it reminds one of being the comic who comes on before the strippers at the Windmill. The Bill that we are considering is important—indeed, by common consent it is the most important of this Session—and it is entirely inappropriate to delay our further consideration—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. While I am in the Chair, the business of the House will not be delayed. What happens outside the Chamber is, of course, interesting and a distraction, but it is not for debate in the Chamber. I call Mr. Maclennan.

Mr. Maclennan: rose——

Mr. Jim Sillars: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: May I have an assurance that this does not relate to points that I have already dealt with?

Mr. Sillars: I am afraid that it does.

Madam Deputy Speaker: In that case, I have dealt with it——

Mr. Sillars: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: I shall hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sillars: Is it in order at this stage, Madam Deputy Speaker, to move, That the Question be now put, so that the Government and the Leader of the House can have an early opportunity to come before the House to make a statement about the Government's intention with respect to the poll tax because, obviously, the Government no longer have a majority for it in the House? If it is in order to do so, I should like to move the Question.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is in order to move that Question, but it is not in order for me to accept the motion at this stage.

Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will know that this evening the Opposition have tabled a motion of no confidence in the Government. That motion reflects the national feeling that a Government who are split by bitter civil war should resign. The House is now put in a quandary. We know that Conservative Members no longer support the Prime Minister, but we do not know whom, if anyone, they will recommend to replace her. Tonight Britain is effectively leaderless. The House of Commons must clearly debate those unprecedented circumstances, and precedent requires that a debate on a no confidence motion be tabled at the earliest possible opportunity. I therefore ask that the date of the debate, and, for that matter, who will speak in it to defend the Government's position, be announced to the House at 10 o'clock tonight.

Mr. John Patten: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I was about to say to the House that I am, of course, aware that a censure motion has been tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. I have more than an inkling that the usual channels will be hot-foot operating on it right at this moment and that a statement will be made to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Maclennan: rose——

Mr. Douglas: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has already raised one point of order with me——

Mr. Cryer: This is on another matter, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Very well, if it is on another matter, I shall hear it.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. All hon. Members are aware of what is happening. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Spark brook (Mr. Hattersley) has read out a statement. Surely, in such circumstances it is not good enough for the Minister who happens to be on the

Government Front Bench to say that he will draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the motion of no confidence in the Government. The Leader of the House should be here. I ask the Minister to ask the Leader of the House to come to the Chamber and make a statement about——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, As I have already explained, the Leader of the House—[Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot continue with points of order that are irrelevant to the business before us—[Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members have heard what I had to say on this matter. It is being discussed through the usual channels. As soon as the Leader of the House is ready to make a statement, he will do so.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely we cannot proceed with business as usual as though nothing has happened. We are in an unprecedented position because the Prime Minister does not enjoy the support of the majority of the House. We cannot continue as though nothing has happened. The Leader of the House has now come to the Chamber. Surely he has already prepared statement A and statement B to deal with all possible eventualities. The eventuality is now clear—the Prime Minister has lost the confidence of the House. We await an appropriate statement from the Leader of the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman deploys arguments that should be deployed during the debate on the motion of no confidence.

Mr. Hattersley: I am as anxious as anyone to proceed with the debate, and that can be easily achieved. The Leader of the House knows that we have asked for, and are entitled to, a date for the debate on the motion of no confidence, and for the names of those who will speak for the Government in that debate. The right hon. Gentleman has only to get up and tell us that, and we can then continue with the debate.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important to continue with this important debate. It may assist the House if I say that I intend to make a business statement at 10 o'clock.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we can now proceed with the debate. I call Mr. Maclennan—[Interruption.] Order. Would those hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quietly, so that we can at least continue with the business before us?

Mr. Maclennan: It was, perhaps, ironic that the moment that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) raised his point of order, I was about to commend to the Minister the Scottish model and manner for dealing with parental involvement in the sentencing process, which should involve a round-table discussion by the children's panel. I believe that that proposal is greatly preferred to the new measures that the Bill seeks to impose on parents. In particular, the Bill's proposals for the binding over of parents of young offenders have not met with the widespread approval of many sentencers, so the Government should reconsider clauses 47 and 48.
It is a matter of the utmost urgency that we do not simply tinker with the remand and sentencing system for juveniles in the custody of the prison department. The Home Secretary intervened earlier to say that, as I understood it, the Government intended to move towards ending the remand and sentencing policy that has led to the appalling suicides of young people in our prisons—not only in Armley prison in Leeds, but in a number of other prisons. What has been happening is not simply an intolerable aberration from the high standards of our prison service, but something that calls into question the policies for the sentencing of juveniles and their detention within the prison system.
Most people are deeply shocked by what has happened. The report by Judge Tumim on Armley prison is confirmation, if that were needed, that the present system is badly in need of overhaul. I hope that, before the Bill is enacted, that matter will have been dealt with both adequately and terminally.
As I said, the Bill marks out a new policy and departs from the old policy in a way that could lead to the prison population falling to levels commensurate with those of comparable European countries. We are far behind them in that respect and we have a long way to go. In so far as the Bill assists that, it will enjoy the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Its deficiencies, which are more of omission than commission, will not lead us to vote against its Second Reading.

Mr. Steve Norris: I wish first to deal with a matter that was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), and which was taken up by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer)—the existence or otherwise of racial discrimination in disposals. Contrary to the view expressed by my hon. and learned Friend, it is of great concern that the statistics published by the Home Office —and I stress the fact that they are published by the Home Office—show that there is troubling evidence of differential disposal methods for ethnic minorities. It does not greatly assist us to pretend that those differences arise simply for socio-economic reasons unrelated to race. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister is greatly concerned about that and will do everything possible to ensure that that discrimination, if it exists, is eradicated.
I am concerned that Opposition Members who have adduced that evidence, and leapt from that to a sentencing council, have missed the point. The point is not the existence or otherwise of discrimination. If it exists, it is intolerable and should be immediately eradicated. I am sure that no Conservative or Opposition Member would tolerate such discrimination. However, we are considering whether the current mechanisms to oversee sentencing now need to be swept aside and replaced by a sentencing council, and of that I am much less sure. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made it clear that his proposed sentencing council would examine the records of courts and judges, presumably to ensure that their sentencing and their disposals were broadly in line with what would be expected. Of course, that would simply identify exactly the same aberrations, such as they are, as are currently being identified by the

Home Office and published by it. After all, the statistics on racial discrimination or otherwise have come from the Home Office.
More importantly, there currently exists a mechanism that includes the Court of Appeal's guidelines, the Magistrates Association's tariff guidelines and other guidelines on sentencing, of which courts are asked to take account. The problem is obvious to anyone who has had any experience of disposals in courts. Each case is rightly treated, either by lay magistrates or by professional judges, as an individual case. Judges rightly endeavour to fit the sentence to the crime.
In remand cases, for example, individual judgments must be made of the status of the individuals who are likely to be eligible for, or rather suffer from, remand in custody. What is much less clear, however, is that a sentencing council could effect remand disposals. If we extrapolate that into actual disposals after conviction, would that council provide us with any better framework than that which exists? I have an open mind on this issue and I look forward to the debates we shall have on it in Committee or on Report. I would support anything that positively prevented the present anomalies that occasionally occur in sentencing. I am, however, unconvinced of the merits of the sentencing council, even bearing in mind the serious situation that underpins the basic thrust of the argument.
I am happy to extend a warm welcome to the Bill. I believe that the restrictions on imposing custodial sentences—those which the White Paper accurately suggests are so serious that only a custodial sentence is justified—are a move in the right direction.
As chairman of Crime Concern, I speak to many audiences about crime and criminality in society. One of the most warming developments in recent years has been the universal recognition that longer sentences do not necessarily lead to a reduction in crime. It is right, however, to follow the evidence that suggests that sentences should be longer for violent offences. I am afraid that there is little or no evidence, however, to suggest that simply longer sentences do anything to prevent the resentment and the process of alienation that so often occurs when a prisoner is incarcerated for a long time.
When all the arguments about the function of punishment have been stripped down and we have gone through the elements of recrimination and society's need for catharsis, there remains one cardinal element in our criminal disposals and punishments—they must be designed to ensure that those who offend do not offend again. With that in mind, I greatly approve of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals. I believe that they are a move in the right direction and, in many ways, they are overdue.
I warmly applaud the introduction of curfew orders and the attendant electronic monitoring. That is entirely right, as it is clear that we need a greater menu of creative disposals so that in appropriate cases—those convicted persons who should not necessarily be sent to an institution—people should be subject to restrictions on liberty that fall short of incarceration in an institution. I believe that there are many reasons why first offenders in almost every category should avoid being sent to an institution if possible. Such creative disposals would still powerfully demonstrate that the person concerned is subject to a special regime.
I have noted the argument that curfew orders and attendant electronic monitoring somehow infringe on civil


liberties. I am one of the few Conservative Members to be an acknowledged supporter of the National Council for Civil Liberties. As the Conservative chairman of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, I first met my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary seven and a half years ago when we argued about the merits or demerits of the Data Protection Act 1984. We clashed on a number of occasions—to my personal cost ever since. With such credentials, spurious or otherwise, I see not one whit of evidence to suggest that electronic tagging and curfew orders in any sense infringe on civil liberties. I intervened earlier to cite the clear statement in paragraph 4.22 of the White Paper which states that it is only appropriate to use such a disposal when restrictions on liberty are justified by the offence. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State would be the first to agree that it is vital that that precondition is attendant on every use of the curfew order. It should be an occasion on which some restriction on liberty is justified by the nature of the offence.

Mr. John Patten: I hope that the House is listening with great care to my hon. Friend. Among hon. Members on both sides of the House, my hon. Friend, above all people, has a considerable reputation as someone who believes in civil liberties. Did my hon. Friend spot the muddle that became apparent as Opposition Members contributed to the debate? It appears that they believe that electronic monitoring is a punishment. But the sentence of the court is the punishment. Electronic monitoring is a way to ensure, with deadly and complete accuracy, whether the punishment is adhered to. It is not a punishment in itself.

Mr. Norris: My right hon. Friend is right. Curfew orders and the attendant electronic tagging would be one of a creative menu of disposals which would follow a conviction for an offence. It is spurious to believe that that would have a peculiar impact on individual civil liberties —an impact which, apparently, a sentence of imprisonment does not have. That is ludicrous nonsense and, in all honesty, I do not believe that it is intellectually sustainable.

Mr. Sheerman: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. In many respects, a number of us admire some of the things he does, especially in the work of Crime Concern. The hon. Gentleman must be aware, however, that, within the range of informed opinion, that organisation stands alone in favour of electronic tagging. All other reputable groups are against it.
Crime Concern does a lot of good work in social crime prevention and the hon. Gentleman knows that if one is to understand such crime prevention one must understand the nature of the offender's family. One of the reasons why we oppose tagging is that it is a sentence on the family, not the individual. If one considers individual rights to include the rights of family members, one must accept that tagging will——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This should be an intervention, not a speech.

Mr. Norris: Subject to your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about Crime Concern. I have been asked by the director of Crime Concern to make it absolutely clear that, on this matter, I speak for myself. I am not speaking for the board of Crime Concern, which includes the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Leicester,

East (Mr. Vaz), or for the directorate of that splendid organisation with which I am privileged to continue my association.
I hope to refer to other aspects of social crime prevention later, but I would be as opposed as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) to electronic monitoring and curfew orders if I did not see them as an alternative to custody. In particular, I believe that any prospect of allowing people to live in their own home is infinitely preferable to the often inadequate conditions for remand persons in prison. Those conditions are acknowledged to be among the worst in our system, rather than the best. I believe that it is an immense advantage to allow people to be remanded to their homes.
One is being short-sighted if one does not appreciate that there can be alternatives to either liberty or custody that allow us to deal with those persons for whom a restriction of liberty is an appropriate disposition which prevents them from joining the university of crime. In talking about social crime prevention the one thing that one must recognise about prison is that when young people go to prison for the first time they are taught how to avoid coming back a second time. They are not taught that that is achieved by not re-offending; rather, they are taught to be a little bit cleverer the next time. That university of crime impact is immensely damaging to our social fabric, and anything we can do in different ways to deal with people who would otherwise have their freedom restricted is desirable.
One must add a rider to such statements. Much has been made of the technical efficiency or otherwise of the tags that we employ at present. I spent some time in the United States examining the issue of tagging, and I heard no complaint about the technical quality of the equipment. So it is probable that we shall be able to develop equipment which is serviceable and capable of withstanding, so to speak, a little damage.

Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend should go to the Whips' Office.

Mr. Norris: I am told that the Whips' Office has 372 versions on order, perhaps in the light of developments this evening.
I assure the hon. Member for Huddersfield that I would not approve of the wholesale use of this type of apparatus until it had been well tried and tested. But it is feeble to argue against the technology because there may have been a few technical failures in the first batch. While we must get the technology right, it is generally agreed that not the technology but the principle behind it is vital. The question is whether it is an appropriate instrument to use, and, having listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, I believe that it is a useful piece of apparatus, particularly for first-time and young offenders.

Mr. Sheerman: Unlike most interventions from Conservative Members, this will be a short one. Is the hon. Gentleman happy that children will be tagged and have to go to school wearing such obvious devices?

Mr. Norris: I am happy to rely on the section in the White Paper dealing with whether restrictions are justified, which is the important precondition. I am not sure that a schoolchild would be the subject of a monitoring device. But if the court decided that that was the desirable course,


if restrictions on an individual's liberty are justified, most people would prefer electronic monitoring to remand in custody or a period of imprisonment. I do not see anything exceptional about that. In the spirit of trying to keep youngsters, in particular, out of prison, alternatives to custody are greatly to be welcomed.
We kid ourselves if we do not recognise that there will be difficulties in implementing alternatives to custody. As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, there is in the probation service a culture that is particularly appropriate to probation. Although probation officers are to be invited to be part of alternative community-based sentencing, I am not sure that that is an appropriate way to use the probation service.
Probation officers have a special and separate role which should be respected. The cultural divide between that role and the necessary regimes for some community-based alternatives to prison would be too great for them to jump. Equally, I do not relish the idea of members of the Prison Officers Association staffing the new schemes.
In the end, we shall probably have to create a separate, third force, perhaps formed of ex-service personnel and others who understand the discipline necessary to handle these issues. Not only will such people appreciate the need to make the new schemes truly effective, but the public will know that they are not providing a soft option. That new force will act in a sphere between the probation service and the Prison Officers Association.
Community acceptance is the vital concept. Up to now, too many magistrates, particularly lay magistrates, have refused to use community service orders because, to borrow a phrase from the Secretary of State, they have been seen as a slap on the wrist. The result is that such orders have never achieved the value that should have been attributed to them.
While all the new moves, not forgetting the proposals on parental responsibility, are to be welcomed, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) spoke about the crucial part of the Bill and, to some extent, its crucial weakness, and the statistics sum it up. During 1990 about 20 million offences will be committed in Britain. About a fifth of those—over 4 million—will be recorded by the police. The other 16 million will not be recorded by them. About 95 per cent. of those crimes will concern property and over half of them will be committed by young men aged 21 or younger. A larger number of them will be opportunistic crimes and be highly preventable. A third of all those convicted of criminal offences will be aged under 17. The peak age of offending, particularly if we strip out the impact of young people being cautioned, is still about 15 for both sexes. The average age of burglars is nearer 15 than 20 and the offences are usually committed within a mile or so of their homes. Over a quarter of all auto crime is committed by youngsters in the 10 to 16 age range. In urban areas, one young man in three has come in contact with the police on a criminal matter before reaching his 17th birthday.
Everything in the Bill, welcome though it is, will not avoid that situation continuing. It will help, but we have a long way to go yet and the path ahead is clear. The hon. Member for Huddersfield referred to the work of Crime Concern. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary, to the Minister of State and to the present Foreign Secretary for

their unswerving support for that splendid organisation, which I am proud to chair but take none of the operational credit for. That work is due entirely to Nigel Whiskin and John Bright and the splendid team at Swindon.
They have developed some splendid ways of dealing with youngsters, preferably before they become criminals. The team has pointed the direction in which local authorities, police forces and voluntary bodies throughout the country can come to terms with crime in their communities. Only by dealing with these issues at the community level shall we come to terms with the problems of criminality in society.
At present, we rely on considerable funding from the private sector to accompany the more than generous grant from the Home Office. But it is generous only in the context of the work that we have done in recent years. Considering the cost of keeping people in custody—never less than £12,000 a year in any regime, however lenient, and up to £30,000 for offenders in close custody—all economic sense points to making a huge investment in youngsters at an early age.
We have an opportunity to break through the vicious cycle of criminality that begins virtually at birth and ends when the person concerned becomes a parent. To know where a 15-year-old develops the attitudes that cause him to become an offender, we must examine his environment, even before he can look over the dining room table. We are speaking of attitudes learnt at home, in school and while at play on street corners. The issue of how well they play, how constructively they employ their time and how they are kept from getting into trouble and becoming another statistic in the criminal justice system is absolutely vital.
In a splendid speech to the Conservative conference at Blackpool a couple of years ago, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary drew a vivid analogy involving the tree that grows straight and the tree that grows crookedly. He said that the determining factor in whether the tree grew straight or crooked was how it was treated when it was a sapling. That analogy is as true now as it ever was. If we do not recognise that we must bridge resources from dealing with conviction and expensive disposal and start putting more of them into prevention, particularly youth prevention, all the evidence in the world shows that we shall not crack the problem.

Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we were to include the statistics of stolen cars and thefts from vehicles in Northern Ireland, the figure would be well over 1 million? Does he agree that whichever Government are in power, they must continually press motor manufacturers to ensure that, as far as possible, there is greater security in all motor vehicles?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to draw attention to the problem of vehicle theft in Northern Ireland and the rest of the country. One point I never cease to make is that if we look at tables of crime and consider how we compare internationally, we see that Great Britain, particularly England and Wales, is virtually bottom of every league of crime. That is something about which we should say a great deal more. Unfortunately, the fear of crime in our society is greater than the incidence of crime merits. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should be responsible enough to promote that fact as much as possible. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the irony is that auto crime breaks all those rules and is


probably higher in Britain than in any other country except the United States. The auto industry must do something about that.
I have talked about Government involvement in funding youth crime prevention, but I also mentioned that my organisation receives a great deal of support from private enterprise. As corporate citizens, private enterprise can do a great deal to help prevent opportunistic crime. Some 90 per cent. of auto crime is purely opportunistic. Until now, security has not been a selling feature. It has been better to put go-faster stripes on the side of a car than to make sure that the car is fitted with proper locks. It is incredible that it is still derisorily easy to open a modern car and take it away. Perhaps there is more evidence of felonious intent thereafter in Northern Ireland than on the mainland of Britain, but in each country such theft often results in considerable damage and cost to the victim of that crime.

Mr. John Patten: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to me a second time.
Does he agree that, notwithstanding the important points made by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), in general terms, crime rates in Northern Ireland are considerably lower than those on the mainland when we set aside dreadful terrorist events? We should pay tribute to the population of the Province for what they have done to contribute to that and for the way in which they bring up their young people.

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reminding the House of that. It is important to bear in mind that England and Wales are virtually bottom of all crime leagues and Scotland, identified separately, is at about the same level—occasionally below and occasionally above England and Wales. In Northern Ireland the position is much more complicated by the incidence of terrorist crime. In general, my right hon. Friend's observations are entirely correct. We must continue to reassure every section of the community. The constituents of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook include elderly people who are made prisoners in their own homes entirely because of a fear of crime that is not justified by the crime rate around them. They are 14 times more likely to be the victims of road accidents than of muggings in any city centre in England and Wales.
I shall return to what was to have been the most platitudinous peroration on record in the House——

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Not by a long chalk; wait until 9.50 pm.

Mr. Norris: Perhaps it is not the most platitudinous. I, too, have listened to the odd speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
We need constantly to remind ourselves that expense on detection, conviction and disposal is an admission of failure to have made enough young trees grow straight, of parental control, influence at school and social influence in the community on a young person's life. We can no longer continue to accept that failure. We must start doing something about it and the key to that is to invest more, both from the private sector and, at the risk of incurring the wrath of my right hon. Friend the Minister, the public sector. We must invest in youth crime prevention that is designed to reach the heart of criminality.
With that reservation, I extend a warm welcome to the Bill, which seems to have begun a trend in the creative management of criminality that has not been seen for many years. It is a considerable piece of work and I shall look forward to considering it in further detail during its passage through the House.

Mrs. Llin Golding: The Bill raises many issues, and I intend tonight to deal only with that section involving children's evidence.
While the law refuses to listen to the evidence of children in our courts, there can be no real justice in this country. Many Members of this House and of the other place, strongly supported by many organisations and individuals, have argued and battled to enable children's voices to be heard in our legal system. In the past three years great strides have been made that have been described as revolutionary in evidence law—not before time.
The Criminal Justice Act 1988 changed the law to introduce the system of video links so that children no longer had to appear in court in the presence of the person they were accusing, but could be cross-examined in another room, linked by a video camera. The Act also contains important changes in the law of corroboration in children's unsworn evidence that recognise that, by its very nature, child sex abuse takes place mainly on a one-to-one basis, most often out of sight of another adult.
I welcome the proposal in clause 42 which is designed to abolish the competency requirement as it now exists. That will mean that children will be allowed to give unsworn evidence. However, I reserve judgment on the wording of the clause until I hear the Minister's explanation of
the power of the court in any criminal proceedings to determine that a particular person is not competent to give evidence shall apply to children of tender years as it applies to other persons.
I am not certain that it has been recognised that children are different from adults and do not have the same capacity to understand words such as "duty to speak the truth." I certainly believe that all children should be listened to, regardless of their age or maturity.
Clause 43 allows the Director of Public Prosecutions to transfer cases, where sufficient evidence exists, directly to the Crown court rather than going through a magistrates court in the first instance, which is to be welcomed in principle. It would certainly reduce the time that cases take to come to court.
Clause 45 will prevent the person accused of child abuse from personally cross-examining the child, which must surely be welcomed by everyone. Clause 44 allows a video recording of an interview with the child to be given in evidence, subject to the court's power to exclude evidence that is inadmissible or, in the interest of justice, should be excluded. All that is good news, for it should make it easier to convict child molesters and, as has been proved elsewhere, it could lead to the accused person confessing after seeing the tape of the child's evidence. The tape will also mean that the child will not have to go through the trauma of retelling the story of the alleged abuse, often months after the initial interview.
The Bill, however, seems to suggest that video recordings can be available as evidence only if the child is available for cross-examination in court.
When other hon. Members and I first submitted amendments to change the law on the giving of evidence by children, during proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bills of 1987 and 1988, I was prepared to concede that in the interests of justice to the accused this was perhaps the only answer. I no longer think that it is. In 1988 the Home Secretary established an advisory group to consider the use of video evidence. It was chaired by Judge Thomas Pigot, and it reported in December 1989.
The report concluded that very young children ought never to be required to appear in public as witnesses in the Crown court. To overcome that, the report promised that once the prosecution was allowed to produce a video recording as evidence it should be allowed as of right to apply for the child witness to be examined and cross-examined at an out-of-court hearing which would itself be video recorded and later shown to the trial judge. I strongly support that suggestion. I understand that a similar procedure is widely used in America, where not only the video recording but also a transcript of the recording is presented to the jury. That seems very sensible.
Although I welcome the progress made in this Bill, I, together with many other people, much regret the fact that the Government have not seen fit to implement in full the Pigot report, for the reforms that it contained provided up-to-date justice in our courts. But there will be other days and other Criminal Justice Bills, and we will not go away until we are satisfied that children, regardless of their age, receive justice in our courts.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly, in the sure and certain knowledge that the increase in crime is causing grave concern to my constituents and other people in this country. The Bill introduces a new and more suitable framework for dealing with offenders in the light of that concern. The maintenance of law and order and respect for the law of the land are part of my political philosophy, and they are given high priority in the policies of the Government.
The growth in crime rates is not restricted to Britain; I am aware that the same problems exist world wide. We have one of the lowest overall crime rates, and the lowest incidence of violent crime in western Europe. Our society is generally much less violent than those of north America and Australia. But knowledge of those facts is no consolation to the elderly pensioner who dare not venture out of his or her house after dark; or to the parents of young children who fear for their safety on the way to or from school, or to and from other activities; or to those whose homes have been broken into and whose personal possessions have been removed—some of them irreplaceable because of their sentimental value.
We are all much more aware of the incidence of crime because of instant communications in the media. Watching the distressed mother of an abducted child appealing for its return on television makes a much greater impression than reading about the event in the newspapers the following day.
What are the causes of the increased level of crime? The psychologists tell us that poverty causes crime, yet today

we enjoy a standard of living higher than ever before in our history. We are told that lack of education causes crime, yet our education system has never been so open or funded so generously. Opposition Members may disagree, but when the Labour party was in office it could not fund these services to the degree that they are funded today.

Mr. Stuart Randall: I am sure that the hon. Lady appreciates that the gap between the rich and the poor has steadily widened under this Government and that that is a major factor which has contributed to the present high crime rates.

Mrs. Winterton: I hear the hon. Gentleman's point, but the social security system is working much better. The hon. Gentleman may have meant his point genuinely but I hope to show other areas in which society has gone wrong and failed our young people. I shall, for instance, point to the statistics given by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), who spoke about the crimes committed by young people.
Crime is caused by several factors deeply rooted in our society. First, it is caused by simple greed. It is also caused by a lack of discipline and of self-discipline and exacerbated by the breakdown of the traditional family unit. That breakdown has been encouraged by liberal elements to the detriment of society, and by the fact that the difference between right and wrong is not inculcated in our children at home or at school to the same extent that it once was. The churches have contributed to that glaring omission because they have failed to promote and provide a strong moral lead for the nation.
Crime prevention has been successfully tackled and promoted by the Government. In my constituency as elsewhere the neighbourhood watch schemes have been a great success. However, people must not relax; they must be eternally vigilant about reporting suspicious behaviour to the police.
There are more police now and they are better paid and better served, but even so more are needed to present a higher profile in public places, reassuring the public of their presence. Moves have been made to release police from administrative and desk duties by substituting them in those tasks by others. That has resulted in more police being available for duties more commensurate with their skills and training. That, too, is to be welcomed.
Several clauses deal with major criticisms from the public, who want the sentencing of offenders to reflect the seriousness of their crimes. They want violent and sexual offenders to have their past records taken into consideration when they are sentenced. They want such offenders to serve their sentences. In the past, when criminals have been let loose on an unsuspecting public far too early—in some cases they have re-offended with tragic results—it has made a mockery of our criminal justice system.
I welcome the moves to differentiate more distinctly between crimes against the person and those against property. We do not want our prisons cluttered with offenders on whom more suitable sentences could be imposed. It is vital that community orders, probation and curfew orders be seen not to be the soft option: they must be rigorously enforced. If any punishment is to succeed in its purpose, it must make the offender deeply regret the crime committed, and that process must take place before any rehabilitation can be instigated.
I welcome the prison building programme, but I fear, from what I have seen on television about the insides of our new prisons, that life inside may well be too cushy. I have never believed in degrading members of the human race by overcrowding and by the insanitary conditions endured in our older prisons, but nor do I consider that prisoners should exist under anything but the most rigorous regime.
I welcome the provisions to make parents more responsible for their children, and I hope that other Government Departments will follow suit in their policies on this matter. I think particularly of the Department of Health, which has in the past undermined parental responsibility for under-age girls who may be the victims of illegal sexual activity. Either parents are responsible for their children or they are not. The Government cannot have it both ways. If parents are unwilling or unable to exercise authority over their children—that happens—others must be brought in to do just that.
Parents will respond positively to the Bill's provisions. Cruelty, neglect and violence to children, including sexual offences, must be considered to be among the most serious of all. Video evidence is vital if there is to be any conviction for crimes against small children. The sooner the child can have its reactions recorded the better. The sooner the case can be brought before the courts the better. The child cannot begin to rebuild its life and security until those traumas are over. The Bill's provisions will assist considerably in convicting those guilty of such horrific crimes as the sexual abuse of children, with the addition of the appropriate safeguards mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
There are some omissions from the Bill. Some crimes are so horrendous that civilised society has to to take what might be considered by some to be uncivilised action. The option of imposing the death penalty should be restored to the courts. In every vote on the subject since I was elected in 1983, I have voted in favour of the ultimate deterrent. I have not changed my mind. If there is an opportunity to do so, I shall remain consistent on that vital issue. My view is shared by millions of law-abiding citizens.

Mr. Alun Michael: I do not agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) at the end of her speech. I invite her, the Home Secretary and the House to look at what works when we try to find solutions to crime.
I have some knowledge and experience of certain matters covered by the Bill. I refer in particular to my experience with young people. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I welcome the fact that there are positive elements in the Bill that will command the support of all parts of the House. We all want sentencing to be effective. We want to prevent crime. We want the courts to operate more effectively. What, however, do those words mean? The Government still have not grasped the ancient wisdom contained in such ancient saws as
Prevention is better than cure",
or
The devil makes work for idle hands",
or
Don't spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar".
The Home Secretary asked me earlier about the kind of world that I live in which has led me to my conclusions

about the crime problem. For two decades I worked with juvenile offenders. I have worked among inner-city communities that have experienced the worst effects of crime. I was chairman of the juvenile bench in Cardiff. It is one of the largest juvenile benches in the country. For many years I was a member of a probation committee. I was the first chairman of the Wales intermediate treatment forum, which sought to bring together police, magistrates, social workers, schools, youth workers and others to tackle the problems that the Bill is meant to address. I lived in a world where the lives of young people were ruined because of their involvement in crime.
What sort of world, I wonder, does the Home Secretary live in? He made me wonder about that when he spoke earlier this evening. To judge by "Dod's Parliamentary Companion", it seems to be a world limited to court experience. What happens in court is important for the prevention of crime, but it is important only if it is relevant and addresses experience in the outside world. It is important only if it works when seeking to deal with crime prevention and crime punishment. Experience teaches us that legislation is not enough. The court system in this country does not need a quick fix. Prevention is not a cheap option. Commitment and care are needed. In making those comments, I echo some of the points made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). The Government must provide the resources and encourage a partnership approach if crime prevention and crime are to be tackled properly.
When I asked the Home Secretary about prevention, he prayed in aid his support of the expansion of neighbourhood watch schemes. That is a sensible response to a problem in a local community, but it is no substitute for proper, well-structured and targeted work in a community, or for the lack of a police presence. The Home Secretary said that police numbers had increased, but the police are frustrated by the increased amount of paperwork and by not having the resources to do the job. The Home Secretary will be responsible for undermining police morale even further if he ignores that fact. He appeared to ignore it when he spoke earlier.
I agree with recent remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook. He said that crime prevention does not strictly fall within the definition of criminal justice matters. That is a major problem. It could, and it should. My right hon. Friend said:
in the minds of the general public, as in my own mind, we cannot divorce the way in which offenders are caught, treated and punished from the need to reduce the level of crime itself.
He commented on the crime epidemic that we are experiencing, but I agree with the hon. Member for Epping Forest who suggested that we should not overstate it. It is a comparative epidemic. I agree with his statistics.
The Home Secretary referred to chapter 9 of the White Paper on resources and costs. It does not refer, however, to prevention. Reference is made to resources to expand community penalties, but community penalties are under-resourced. Reference is made to £15,800 a year to keep an offender in custody, to the fact that the successful completion of 100 hours of community service costs less than £450 for each offender and to the fact that supervision under a probation order costs about £1,000 a year for each offender. The White Paper continues:
the more intensive the supervision, the greater the cost.
That is right, but the greater the cost, as long as the money is well used, the greater the effectiveness. The less


intensively that it is used the more likely is it that the community-based option will fail. Failure is inordinately expensive. The price of failure is the committal of further crimes and additional problems and burdens for our communities.
The Bill refers to additional resources for social inquiry reports. The cost is estimated at £2·5 million for the 11,250 reports that will have to be made. A request has been made for more information about the figures. We want to be sure that they have not been plucked out of the air.
A social inquiry report goes nowhere on its own. It must have a purpose and a target and must be made in the context of a court where creative actions are taken, particularly when young people come before it. The court atmosphere can be constructive. I know from my own experience that sentencing can be the result of a team approach when it is targeted at what will work for young people, thus avoiding the burden of additional crime as young people are tempted into further criminality. That does not necessarily happen. The Government are responsible for providing the resources and creating the context within which court experience can be positive, and not another negative experience for young people which is more likely to lead to an acceleration of their criminal careers.
The Bill ought to address probation, sentencing, punishment, the protection of the public and the diversion of young people from committing crimes. The Bill does not reflect any Government enthusiasm to make community-based options work effectively for the benefit of society as a whole. It contains references to curfew orders. Superficially, that is an attractive option. I can think of cases where curfew orders could be useful and effective, but most probation officers and others who work in the community with offenders regard measures such as curfew orders and electronic monitoring as misguided and unproductive. They believe that constructive measures are far more likely to divert offenders from committing further crimes. We ought to concentrate on measures that work, instead of getting hung up on electronic tagging. It is interesting to note that the courts appear to agree.
Curfew requirements have been available for juvenile offenders since 1983, but are hardly ever used. They are used only by the more creative sentencers in most particular circumstances. I hope that the Minister will ask why that is so. If we are to have this order, let us look at the expectations and the practice to be followed in its use. It appears that these are ideas devised by Ministers and lawyers. Such ideas do not necessarily work. They can play up to popular prejudice, but, in relation to juvenile crime in our society now, we need solutions that work. Above all, we need team work. There is mutual frustration among the police, magistrates, social workers, probation officers and others at working in a system which is so fragmented and which ultimately does not work. It needs the weight and authority of the Home Secretary and the Government to make a team approach work.
I was involved about 15 years ago in a project in South Glamorgan entitled "Working together for children and their families". The lessons learnt from that project are as valid today as they ever were. One thing that has not been done successfully is to create in each of our big towns and cities, particularly, the sort of teamwork necessary to

combat crime. That will not be achieved simply by legislation. It must be achieved by placing resources in the right places.
I agree with the hon. Member for Epping Forest about the value of diverting young people away from ascending the ladder of crime into the universities of crime. In recent years, the most successful approaches to reducing juvenile crime have been constructive supervised activity schemes. Such schemes work to steer delinquents away from crime and—this is important in relation to the comments of the hon. Member for Congleton—to involve parents in taking more responsibility for their children's behaviour. It is not enough to say in law that parents should take responsibility for their children's behaviour. It is not enough to put it in an Act or for the Home Secretary to tell parents what to do. The atmosphere must be created in which parents are persuaded and enabled to take greater responsibility for their children. That approach has proved to be much more effective than punitive measures. We should concentrate on promoting positive approaches to working with delinquents and reinforcing parental responsibility, rather than relying on punitive measures which are fraught with problems and are likely to be counter-productive. I regret that the Government's approach smacks of the Prime Minister's approach, which is to tell everybody, whatever their professional knowledge and experience, how things should work, rather than recognising the reality of what happens in our community.
Resources must be used in that direction and I plead with the Government and Conservative Members to persuade the Home Secretary to do just that. There is a need for the resources referred to in the White Paper not just for probation but for several related agencies, because criminal justice is not an isolated activity. It takes place not on an island but in the society in which people live. The courts must relate to that society if they are to work effectively. For instance, there is an inverse correlation between the provision of youth service in a community and the amount of criminal activity. Therefore, it is sensible to ensure that our communities have good youth work provision. That is part of creating a healthy society and a healthy society is one in which crime is discouraged by the context in which people live.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that early identification of potential offenders is equally important because in that way help can be provided at an early stage?

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pinpointing precisely the point I wanted Ministers to hear today.
I worked in an inter-agency team in Cardiff for a number of years. We succeeded in identifying and working with youngsters before they got into trouble. We received a great deal of praise for our efforts. The annual report of the probation committee referred to the reduction in crime in that area. What happened? In the following year, probation resources were withdrawn because there were not as many young people offending. We had succeeded in doing what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) suggested. We identified potential offenders at an early stage and provided positive alternatives in the community to divert them from ever needing to become involved in the criminal system. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South is right and


I hope that Ministers will take that point on board. The probation service had to withdraw resources because fewer people were coming to court and the figures did not meet the requirements of the Government through the Home Office.
The Government now say that there are sufficient probation officers. That is in theory only. The Home Secretary said that sufficient support and the necessary resources will be provided to back up the Bill. The White Paper identified certain resources but did nothing to address the gaps in provision to which I and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South have referred. If the Home Secretary wants to provide the resources, for God's sake, let us ask him not to take an accountant's estimate or statistician's figure but to look at creative initiatives that have worked in the community and listen to those who have tried to make them work and take their advice on the resources and continuity required.
The Children Act 1989 referred to delay and pointed out that delay is prejudicial to the interests of a child. Will the Government take that on board in relation to young offenders? Anybody who has sat in a juvenile court for a considerable time will have seen a youngster who, when asked, "Did you plead guilty or not guilty?", says, "What is that?" When a description is given the youngster then says, "I don't know. I can't remember because it's so long ago." It is impossible to tackle the root of criminal activity if the case comes before the court so long after the event that the youngster, never mind the police and witnesses, has forgotten the activities that led to the court appearance. There is no mention in the Bill of the prejudicial nature of delay to young children. Will the Minister take that on board and consider an amendment in Committee to emphasise, for all those concerned with the criminal justice system, that delay is prejudicial to the young offender, the victim and potential victims if the offender continues a career in crime?
An academic who looked at the terms of the Bill identified the danger of an increase in the time taken as a result of the provisions in the Bill. Some of the measures that I regard as positive might contribute to that sort of delay and that would be a tragedy. Will the Minister consider that? I ask him please to consider repeating in relation to juvenile offenders the strictures of the Children Act 1989.
On contracting out, my experience in juvenile courts of replacing the police with the Crown prosecution service was a disaster. It removed one or two police officers who were regularly in the juvenile court. They understood young people and acted as a means of communication between those young people and their families and the police officers who had to bring cases before the court. They made a tremendous contribution to juvenile justice in Cardiff. The loss of those police officers from the court affected not just the presentation of the case but the whole well-being, efficiency and effectiveness of the court system. The policemen's presence and ability to anticipate problems and aid the smooth running of the courts was invaluable.
Has the Home Secretary or Minister of State been involved in escort duty or with some of the young people and adults of whom we are talking? I regret that within the Government there is a mistrust of professionals. Police and prison officers should be enabled to do a proper job and work with the system to use their professionalism and training to the best advantage. I regret that in recent year

—this is why the Home Secretary's answer on numbers of police officers was unhelpful—the grain of the Government's changes has been to stand in the way of the effective use of the professionalism of police officers and prison officers.
Will prisoners be given a choice of private institutions? Presumably, a competitive regime is being proposed. Will they have the same ability as patients within hospital trusts to use competition and to wander the country with money following them in search of the right institution? The purpose of this nonsensical idea is to diminish the status of the service and, like the options for the health service, should be thrown out quickly.
The number of people on remand awaiting sentence undermines the remedial work of prisons, which become places of containment. The message that I have received from prison officers and from their representatives is that they want to do a proper job and to be involved in remedial work, but the present situation in prisons does not allow that.
Then there is the remanding of young people in prisons. The incident at Armley was mentioned earlier and there was an incident at Swansea as well. I hope that the Minister and the Woolf inquiry will carefully consider the evidence of the all-party panel on penal affairs, which includes several people with considerable judicial and judicious experience, because a number of members of the other place take part in its discussions. Its representations are related to both issues, as is the overall approach to tackling and preventing crime in our communities. If only the Government would tackle the entry point to a criminal career among children and young people, and if only they would prevent youngsters from moving up the ladder of a criminal career, many of our problems would become manageable, our prisons and institutions would become manageable and people could use their professional experience positively.
There is an inconsistency in the Bill about the admissibility of evidence from young people. A youngster under 14 does not need to be sworn. The Bill, therefore, acknowledges the special circumstances of young people in court, but it brings the 17-year-old and the 10-year-old together in court. Why is a child aged between 10 and 14 not a child when he is involved in a criminal case? I suggest most strongly that the separation of age groups should be made compulsory. Mixing youngsters who perhaps are charged for the first time with trivial offences and those who have offended repeatedly is bad practice. I ask the Minister to take that point on board and perhaps to accept an amendment to the Bill,

Mr. John Patten: I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks with the authority of someone who sits on the bench as a justice of the peace. I am listening with care to him and apologise for not being present earlier, but I was eating a Mars bar preparatory to my reply to the debate. I followed with care the hon. Gentleman's point about the age range of 10 to 17. The Bill provides for a youth court to deal with those aged between 16 and 17. That will cause a separation between the juvenile court and the youth court, but I wonder how his interesting idea, which I am following with care and on which I have an open mind, would impact on the new division of ages that is introduced by the Bill.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the Minister's response. Other methods of separation would be beneficial to how age groups are treated within the court programming system. It is a point of detail, but the Minister has shown that he is open minded and I hope that there will be an opportunity to examine these matters further. I understand that my general point is supported by the Magistrates Association.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must consider not only physical age but mental age? Someone who is 16 may have a mental age of 11. To lump him with someone who has a mental age of 16 can lead to injustice and unfairness.

Mr. Michael: I accept what my hon. Friend says. We must differentiate between criminal sophistication, because there are unsophisticated and very sophisticated 12-year-olds. That cannot be dealt with by simple rules, but only if the court structure is sensitive to such matters. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out those nuances and I hope that they will be considered seriously in Committee.
The encouragement of parental responsibility is a matter about which we are all concerned, because the method that is chosen is important. I ask the Minister to consider some of the comments that have been made on the White Paper by the Magistrates Association and others who are equally concerned that parental responsibility should be encouraged. I ask him to consider the dangers of introducing methods that place strictures on parents, that have harmful effects and that hasten the breakdown of family relationships. Parents may feel that they are being punished twice for their child's one offence. We must be careful to introduce not measures that pander to easy emotions on parental responsibility but ones that work and help. Again, I feel that I am echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Epping Forest.
My experience is that most children and young people do not need to be involved in crime. We can do much to improve the society in which they live, their training, their job opportunities and their image of themselves. Crime will not be ended by those measures, but it will be brought within manageable limits. That should be our first target, so that the group of individuals who in any society will be involved in crime is kept to a minimum and so that resources are targeted on those who need them and who need treatment.
I was pleased to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Epping Forest on the differential in the sentencing of ethnic minorities. There is an allied need for constructive work in the community to identify problems and to try to anticipate them, not just in relation to sentencing. Positive, imaginative and preventive schemes in the community can cut crime drastically. Those schemes often depend on the high personal commitment of volunteers and professionals, who have been referred to in the professional circles as "the charismatic nuts". They can operate only for as long as they can keep up the momentum. Long-term success needs resources and long-term planning and teamwork in the community to ensure that the lessons of projects are learned, carried into the court structure and made univerally available where they are needed.
The Government have signally failed on that point and I appeal to the Minister and the Home Secretary to amend the provisions of the Bill that are weak or not justified by

the facts and to complement its positive measures by providing resources for youth and community activity and for the preventive work of the probation service and community services to stop youngsters getting involved in crime. I ask them to ensure long-term success by providing those resources and long-term planning and team work in the community.
The Government have paid much lip service to the prevention of crime. In some of his responses, the Minister of State has shown a personal interest in making schemes work, but they cannot be seen as a cheap option and I appeal to the Home Secretary, who has not shown the same sympathy as the Minister, not to repeat mistakes but to make use of the professionalism, experience and evidence that is available on what preventive work can achieve and to build that into the Bill and into the measures that will accompany it when it is implemented.

Mr. Roger Gale: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). The House has great respect for his knowledge of work with young people. I was particularly impressed by his argument about withdrawing police from courts because of the introduction of the Crown prosecution service, and I agree with him. I believe that many Conservative Members agree with his comments about the importance of getting community service right in terms of how it affects young people.
I part company with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth on parental responsibility. The hon. Gentleman goes half way but, like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) —who made some rather churlish comments about the entire Bill —he seems incapable of accepting parental responsibility as part of statute. Day after day, many people approach Members of Parliament and keep ramming that message home. Those of us with teenage children know the difficulties of exercising parental control. It is not an easy job, but that does not mean that it is open to any of us to abrogate responsibility and to say, "Let someone else carry on." But that message has come to us repeatedly from the Opposition
.
Of course, we must make the right provision for young people. Of course, that must be part of a package of measures. If we ask young people to take part in community service, of course that service must be properly introduced, staffed and structured. But the bottom line is that parents must be required to take some responsibility for their children. That responsibility has broken down and, in part, has led to the increase in juvenile crime.
I should like to give an immediate and broad welcome to the thrust of the Bill. Unlike the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, I believe that it is imaginative and far-sighted. It will take us another step forward in the sequence of Criminal Justice Bills that the Government have introduced.

Mr. Stuart Randall: The Opposition are not saying that parents should not take an interest in their children. We are concerned about the fact that some proposals in the Bill will fine parents for some of the misdemeanours in which their children take part. We believe that that could drive a wedge between young people and their parents and that it is not conducive to building the relationships that can alleviate crime.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman says only what so many Opposition Members said repeatedly for the greater part of the debate. I listened carefully to them. It is clear that they are prepared to will the end but not the means. In other words, as on so many other issues, they do not have the bottle for the job. I am not saying that every word in the Bill as drafted is perfect. I have served on the Standing Committees on two Criminal Justice Bills, and I hope to serve on the third. We revised those Bills in Committee. Of course, we shall look at every dot and comma and try to ensure that we have got this Bill right. There must be a fundamental commitment to the principle that parents must take responsibility. There is nothing wrong with enshrining that in law.
Our constituents will be extremely heartened by the balance that the Bill strikes between the crime and the punishment. We repeatedly hear from constituents how strongly they feel about the lack of appropriate punishment for violent offenders and sexual offenders. We repeatedly hear complaints about the fact that first-time offenders are sometimes given custodial sentences. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said that prisons were cluttered with those on whom a more appropriate sentence could be imposed, and I could not agree more.
There is a general impression that prisons are universities of crime. There is a strong impression—this is another message that came across in the debate—that there are many people in prison who should not be there. Also, our constituents resent the fact that their taxes pay to keep in prison people who should be paying their debt to the community in the community.
It is nonsense to break up a home, send a man or woman to prison, support the family through every kind of benefit and impose on it the social stigma and social damage caused by removing a parent. The offender could and should much more properly serve his or her sentence and pay his or her debt to the community in the community in a way that is useful not only to the community but to the individual while maintaining the family unit. The Bill aims to draw that necessary distinction between crimes for which custodial sentences are appropriate and essential for the protection of the public, and crimes for which custodial sentences are not appropriate, except in extremis.
It is important that service to the community is constructive and not mindless. If we are to go down that road, it is vital that we make proper provision for the service that will benefit the community and the individual. Just digging ditches and filling them in is not the answer to anyone's problems. There are many jobs that can and should be done by people paying their debt to society.
I listened with interest to references to privatization of escort work and remand prisons. I was saddened by the response by the Opposition and some of my colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). I understand the concern of the police, but surely every hon. Member believes that highly trained, experienced, efficient police officers should use their time to the best advantage to do police work. We no longer ask the police to do most point duty. We do not ask them to act as traffic wardens, except rarely, so i cannot understand why it is necessary to ask a highly trained policeman or policewoman to escort remand prisoners travelling on a bus between a remand prison and court.
I cannot understand why the Opposition seem unwilling to learn the lessons that have been learned in the United States and to try privatization of remand prisons. The authorities in the United States have gone much further down that road and have privatized penitentiaries. That works well. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge says that it is vital that the security staff who are employed are properly trained. We clearly need to give attention to that. To use the Opposition's words, we do not want any cowboys doing the job, but there is no reason why a cowboy firm should do the job, unless we let it.

Mr. Sheerman: At the Labour party conference, the senior director of the Group 4 company—which, I believe, is one of the most reputable security operations—told me about what he called a cowboy firm guarding submarine installations in Scotland and paying men £1 an hour. When will the Government do something about that system? If it can happen guarding submarines in a highly sensitive defence area, it can happen with the privatisation of remand services.

Mr. Gale: I appreciate the fact that much of the hon. Gentleman 's observation, like much of his policy, is based on guesswork and hearsay. Conservative Members try to go into matters more deeply and seriously. I am prepared to believe that there are private security firms that are not up to scratch, just as there are parts of the public service that, on occasions, are not up to scratch. That is no reason not to use some imagination and not to allow those who could do the job efficiently to do so and save the time of trained policemen and policewomen.
In looking at private remand prisons, are we prepared to consider the reintroduction of what was called the bridewell, the remand prison with the court room attached? It has been suggested that in inner cities that could be especially appropriate. It has been suggested that when we are considering new buildings—and it has been suggested that some high-rise blocks might be eminently suitable as remand prisons—it should be possible to build the court room into the same establishment, which would minimise travelling and, therefore, the amount of escort duty necessary. I hope that my right hon. Friend can comment on that in his winding-up speech or that he will say that we may be able to examine that idea during the Bill's progress.
I have studied with great interest the provisions dealing with probation and with release on licence. Clearly, those provisions will be the subject of debate in Committee. At this stage, I want to say to my right hon. Friend only that he may wish to comment on the extension of sentences and on the reduction of parole when prisoners behave badly or cause disturbances in prisons. The Bill seems to lay considerable emphasis on the terms of release on probation from prison, but it does not refer to sanctions that may be taken against prisoners who cause disturbances while in gaol. We have seen recently how dangerous such disturbances can be and how they can affect the welfare and lives not only of prison officers, but of other prisoners. The Bill provides an opportunity for us to address ourselves to the subject of disturbances in prisons.
Several hon. Members who are members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs are absent today because they are taking evidence on football hooliganism. It would be wrong for me, as a member of that Committee, to


pre-empt its findings. However, I have been asked to make a couple of points that arise from the evidence that we have taken already. The Bill contains several new offences that may prove extremely appropriate in dealing with those who cause trouble inside and outside football grounds. The police who gave evidence last week to the Committee made the point clearly that the powers to search fans outside and, especially, inside grounds are woefully inadequate. We heard an appalling story from one police officer about a fan who, when arrested inside the ground, was found to have about his person a plastic rocket launcher which was designed to hurl missiles to the other end of the pitch and to explode among the spectators there. It is clear already that the provision that allows the police and others who are exercising crowd control inside football grounds powers of search is inadequate for them to do the job that they are required to do.
The police also suggested that their powers and those of the security teams who are used at football grounds are inadequate for the control of pitch invasions. It is often said that the police do not do enough to control crowds on the football pitch, but in view of the presence on the pitch of thousands of fans, it is abundantly clear that no amount of effort by the police or by the security teams will be sufficient to identify more than a few of the miscreants so that they can be brought to trial. I know that the Select Committee will want to make recommendations on that. I hope and believe that the Select Committee's report on policing football stadiums and on football hooliganism generally will be published while the Bill is in Committee and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to respond to some of the recommendations and, if necessary, to take appropriate action to legislate on them during the passage of the Bill so that time will be saved and the measures will be implemented as swiftly as possible.
I want to refer to issues facing the magistrates courts. Most of them are not referred to in the Bill, so a Second Reading debate may not be an appropriate stage at which to discuss them. However, this debate provides an opportunity to place on record some of the concerns felt by magistrates and by court officers such as about the sentencing of uninsured drivers. Formerly, those who drove uninsured were liable to a prison sentence, but that offence was then removed from the list of imprisonable offences because it was felt that simply not having insurance was not a sufficient reason for someone to be sent to prison—and, broadly speaking, I concur.
However, there is a strong feeling from the magistrates' benches that in removing the liability of going to prison from those who drive without insurance, several knock-on effects have been created. It is suggested that if uninsured driving was reinstated as an imprisonable offence, it would be possible for magistrates to award prison sentences in extreme cases and, in most cases, to impose community service, which they cannot now impose on the uninsured driver. My right hon. Friend may consider that the matter can be more properly considered when we discuss the Bill on road transport and if he cares to tell me that when he——

Mr. John Patten: indicated assent.

Mr. Gale: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Perhaps he will either make representations or encourageme

me to make representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, so that the matter can be addressed in the Bill on road transport. It is clear that the sentencing provision available to magistrates for uninsured drivers is inadequate at present.
Earlier in the debate, we heard much about release on bail, especially as it applies to members of the coloured community, and that is also a source of concern to magistrates' benches, although I do not wish to go through the arguments again. At present, the justification for surety and bail, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said earlier, is based on the likelihood to leave—in other words, whether the accused is likely to appear before the court. The court finds that extremely restrictive and the benches have suggested that bail could be used in a wider range of cases and circumstances, and imposed using criteria other than simply whether the accused is likely to reappear before the court. It is also suggested that the bail imposed is often worth more than the fine that would be imposed, so if the accused absconds, the court at least gets its money.
There is concern about the powers of the magistrates courts to commit people to the Crown court for sentence. It is felt that if the magistrates courts had a general power to commit for sentence to a Crown court when other matters were already under consideration before the Crown court, those cases and sentences could then be taken together in the Crown court, which would obviate the need for sentences to be imposed in the Crown court and for further matters then to go back to the magistrates court for final sentence. That would simply cut out the middle man——

Mr. Sheerman: Just get on with it.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) makes some disparaging remark. I will give way to him so that he can say it again.

Mr. Bermingham: I did not say anything to the hon. Gentleman, who should have an eye test. Has he heard of section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which gives power to the higher court to deal with the lower court on minor matters?

Mr. Gale: The magistrates' clerks feel that their powers are not general enough for them to be able to refer cases for total sentencing from the magistrates courts at their instigation rather than at the instigation of the Crown court. I know that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South spends far more time in court than I am likely or hope to do. I am merely seeking to relay to the House the feelings of those at the sharp end who do another part of the job that the hon. Gentleman seeks to do. I know that the Bar has a view of those matters, but so has the bench and so have magistrates' clerks. It is right that the House should hear and pay attention to some of those views. Perhaps there are occasions when we do not listen enough to those who are at the sharp end.
Another area of concern is the non-production of prisoners before courts. The bench feels that there is a need for guidance. It is felt by many of those who sit on the bench that there is a need for an explicit provision in the Bill to cover what courts should do when prisoners are not produced before magistrates courts. That takes on a particular relevance if we are to move towards the privatisation of remand prisons. It is clear that the


responsibilities of those running such establishments will have to be defined. We need to define how the courts are expected to react when the prisoners whom they anticipated dealing with are not produced before them.
Capital punishment has been raised yet again in the debate. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton said earlier that he intended to table an amendment to the Bill with a view to reintroducing the penalty of capital punishment as the maximum available sentence for murder. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who is a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and who is taking evidence at the moment, has told me that it is his intention to table such an amendment.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, I have voted in favour of the reintroduction of capital punishment on every occasion when the House has debated the issue since I have been a Member of this place. I believe that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder. I believe also that the incidence of armed crime has risen since the abolition of capital punishment. That continues to place the men and women of the police force in an intolerably dangerous position. I hope and believe that the House will have a further opportunity to debate an issue that has the overwhelming support of the general public when we come to consider the Bill on Report. I shall support an amendment that seeks to reintroduce capital punishment.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Unless more restraint is shown by hon. Members in the length of their speeches, other hon. Members will be disappointed by not being able to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I understand your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that those who wish still to contribute to the debate will bear it in mind. There have been some fairly long contributions and perhaps they have prevented some of us who have been in our places since the beginning of the debate from developing some of the arguments that we wished to advance on Second Reading.
As a Member who has been a member of a Committee that considered a former Criminal Justice Bill, and as someone who has considered our approach to criminal justice legislation over the past 10 years, I am rather like the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) in being circumspect in approaching a fresh Criminal Justice Bill. The main provisions of such a Bill are loudly trumpeted, well trailed and held before the House as the Government's final answer to rising crime rates.
It is claimed that the best way to stop criminals from profiting from their illegal activities is to support the provisions in the latest Criminal Justice Bill. The crime figures tell us, however, that crime has increased at a faster rate under this Government than at any time since the second world war. I refer to the seemingly endless increase in serious crime. The number of offences of violence against the person has doubled since 1979. There were 94,960 such offences reported in 1979, and 180,000 were reported in the year ending June 1990. The figure for 1990

was a 7 per cent. increase on the figure for the previous year. These are startling statistics when we have a Government who were elected on a law and order ticket.
Before dealing with the main provisions of the Bill, I wish to stress yet again the need for a new approach in dealing with crimes of violence. Over the years, as a practitioner in the criminal courts, it has sickened me to see the inconsistency of approach between crimes involving violence and crimes related to property. Motoring offences sometimes attract more serious sentences than those that are given for crimes of violence, and that worries me. I have never understood why theft or burglary should be considered more abhorrent than violence. Of course, theft and forcible entry of a dwelling must be adequately punished, but striking a person in anger, especially a child or a woman, is a hideous offence. It is an attack on a person's dignity. It is the intrusion of a person's privacy, and to that extent it is destructive. Our entire approach to sentencing should recognise that. To the extent that it is recognised in the Bill, it is welcome and long overdue.
There are other matters set out in the Bill that are welcome, and we have heard about them today. I have in mind the new sentencing framework, the proposal for unit fines and the abolition of sentences of detention for 14-year-old boys. There is a number of omissions, however, that should be highlighted, and we need to strengthen some of the proposals in the Bill.
We lack consistency in our approach to sentencing and the provisions in part I may well fall short of producing the consistency in sentencing that would give our criminal justice system greater credibility and authority. We have heard about the recent survey which showed that there were considerable variations in sentencing between courts. The average use of custody at Wood Green Crown court, for example, was 38 per cent., whereas it was 69 per cent. at Mold Crown court in Clwyd. In Powys, 6 per cent. of adults received custodial sentences for theft, yet 17 per cent. did so in Cheshire. At Gloucester, 29 per cent. of those sentenced for burglary received custodial sentences, while 54 per cent. did so in north Wales. That level of inconsistency is indefensible. The public do not understand why they are more likely to receive a custodial sentence in one part of the country than in another.
I have some reservations about the concept of a sentencing council. We should be able to avoid getting ourselves into the position of having to set one up. Unfortunately, however, the Government do not have sentencing policy right in the context of the Bill, and we may be driven to consider setting up such a council unless we achieve a consistency which gives greater credibility and authority to the criminal justice system.
One of the main omissions from the Bill is a coherent strategy for reducing the remand population. I introduced a Bill in 1988 which was aimed at achieving a consistent approach. Again, I commend the contents of the Bill to the House. Remand prisoner figures are staggering. In March, the remand population in England and Wales was 10,194, or 20 per cent. of the entire prison population. The proportion of remand prisoners to prisoners generally has more than doubled in the past 13 years. Remand prisoners are also often held in the worst conditions. All hon. Members should be worried about the fact that nearly 60 per cent. of self-inflicted deaths in prisons occur on remand. Prisoners are three times more likely to take their own lives than the rest of the population. However, if we


consider the remarkable statistics about remand prisoners, it is clear that only 36 per cent. of female and 52 per cent. of male prisoners who are remanded in custody eventually receive a custodial sentence.
I welcome the acknowledgement that for most crimes punishment in the community is not only likely to be in the public interest, but would also increase the prospect of victims receiving compensation. That is a welcome development. It is important that the criminal justice system accepts the need to compensate the victim. If we can achieve that by ensuring that more people receive sentences in the community to do community work, that would help to create the proper system.
Conservative Members have spoken about the benefits of electronic tagging. However, I do not believe that the case has been made for tagging. I listened with great care to what has been said, but I am inherently against tagging. There have been only a few minor pilot schemes and I believe that there should be more of them before we enshrine the principle in legislation. It is dangerous to introduce the principle in primary legislation.
I am also worried about the extended powers to bind over parents of young offenders. I understand that we must make parents more responsible for the activities of children; that is a very strong point. However, my experience, and the experience in the courts generally, has shown that where current powers to make parents more responsible for the offences of their children are used, it can involve friction in families. We must strike a balance between the need to make parents responsible for the offences of their children and the need to bind families together instead of breaking them up and creating friction. The Government have not made a proper case in that respect in the Bill.
I am also worried about the privatisation of prisoner escort services and particularly for remand prisons. I have an inherent objection to that proposal. It is abhorrent that money can be made from the administration of criminal justice.
The Bill has some good parts and it contains some useful provisions. However, I believe that it has some completely unnecessary gimmicks and some glaring omissions which should be considered. I stress again that my main objection to the Bill is that it contains no coherent strategy for reducing the remand population. I recognise that that would entail the use of greater resources, but it is wrong that people who are mentally ill or suffer from drug or alcohol abuse should be kept in prison. Other provision should be made for them.
It was remarkable that, when the Home Secretary responded to a point about the code of guidance or memorandum, he could not tell us what other provisions there were for those people. He said that we should consider other provisions and ways of dealing with them, but he could not tell us how or where. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will tell us where those people are to be kept, because greater resources are involved. Until we have a coherent strategy for reducing significantly the remand population, we shall not have a proper approach to the criminal justice system.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): I welcome this opportunity to speak and I regret the fact that Conservative Members have said once again that they want to see the restoration of capital punishment. The House has decided that issue decisively on three or four occasions over recent years. I believe that only two firm pieces of new evidence that should concentrate our minds have come to light since the previous debate. They are the acceptance that the Guildford Four were innocent and the acceptance by most people that the Birmingham Six should be released. Those are clear reminders that there can be miscarriages of justice and that the death penalty is final and makes it impossible to provide recompense for such miscarriages.
The Bill addresses a new situation in that we are now in a lame duck Parliament with a lame duck Prime Minister who can clearly restore her credibility in the country and overseas only if she opts for a general election. The likelihood is that during the passage of the Bill we will have a general election sprung on us. We shall then have from my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Labour party Front Bench new legislation of a very different nature or we shall get some of the non-controversial parts of this Bill enacted in the last few days before a general election. I hope that the Minister will try to get consensus from the Bill instead of confrontation.
The major issue at the general election will be the greed society which has been created over the past 11 years. I believe that it is odd that, having achieved a dramatic demographic change in the number of young people in the age group likely to commit crime, we have not seen a fall in the general crime statistics, although I welcome the fact that crimes among juveniles appear to be declining in line with demographic changes.
I measure the Bill against the effect that it will have on my constituents. They still suffer a great deal from petty crime, much of which is committed by their neighbours, and their greatest regret is that the Bill contains no clear measures to prevent crime. There is nothing about crime prevention. I hope that, as the Bill proceeds, the Government will bring forward measures to prevent crime.
In August the Minister of State tried to justify the large increase in the crime figures and he said that it was the public's fault because they did not deter opportunist crime. I accept that some members of the public could take a little more care of their property and could try to discourage some opportunist crime. However, in my constituency too much of the crime arises from people trying to earn small sums of money to pay for drugs and from boredom, neither of which leads to opportunist crimes.
If the Government want to stop opportunist crime, they should make more efforts in certain areas. The Government have suggested, with regard to credit cards, that people should have a discount for cash. Ministers should cast their minds back 10 or 15 years when one of the most common crimes involved armed bandits holding up petrol stations. That crime virtually disappeared because petrol companies improved security at their stations and the majority of people began to pay for their petrol by credit card. The amount of money available to be stolen in petrol stations late at night diminished dramatically. If the Government want to discourage criminals going after money and using violence, they should be encouraging credit cards, not discouraging


them. I realise that credit cards increase fraud, but if we must choose between the two, I should prefer fraud to violent crimes involving people trying to take money.
The Government should also consider how the poll tax affects matters such as street lighting. It is clear that many local authorities have identified relatively cheap schemes to improve street lighting and make property more secure, but those schemes still cost money. It is extremely difficult for those authorities to get the money. Until recently, tower blocks in Brinnington in my constituency had fairly high levels of crime. The local authority put in surveillance systems—entry is gained only after identifying oneself—put in new door frames and carried out various other measures dramatically to improve the security of those tower blocks. The effect has been tremendously good for the people who live in the tower blocks. The only problem is that such improvements are expensive. If the Government want to prevent crime and, in the end, save money, they should make it easier for housing authorities to take those measures. We have already discussed the failure of car manufacturers to make motor vehicles secure.
The last point on crime prevention is that we should do much more to encourage the youth service—again, one of the services that are squeezed by the working of the poll tax or the community charge. The youth service is one way to avoid boredom.
There should be much more in this legislation about restitution to some of our constituents who lose out as a result of crime and then find that they get very small sums in compensation.
In the debate on the Queen's Speech I pressed the Home Secretary about what he will do about the disgraceful situation in Greater Manchester. He knows that there are far too many remand prisoners at the moment in police cells in the Greater Manchester area. We understand the problems that occurred at Strangeways, but it is ridiculous that a police station such as Stockport has inadequate cells and that those cells are cluttered up with remand prisoners.
I should have thought that the Home Secretary could use the problems of Manchester dramatically to cut the time that people on remand remain in prison or, in Greater Manchester, remain in police cells. All he does is say that it is the prison warders' responsibility. He is the Minister in charge. He should find some way of negotiating so that we could get remand prisoners out of police cells in Greater Manchester.
Also, the Home Secretary has to accept at least 112 days as a firm legal requirement in which to get people into court rather than to allow the conspiracy which seems so often to occur between the various people involved and which allows remand cases to run on and on.
There are many other points that I should like to make. No doubt I will have an opportunity to make some in Committee. However, we should look at prisoners' rights. I have made that point on many occasions. It is easy to give rights to people of whom we approve, but it is difficult to give rights to people of whom we disapprove. We should consider giving far more rights to prisoners. When a prisoner asked me whether he could have a copy of the prison rules, I sent him a copy, but he was denied access to most of them. He was told that they were not available to prisoners. I realise that there are difficulties with barrack room lawyers in prisons, but prisoners should be able to see the rules and have a clear understanding of them.
Parental responsibility has been pressed by Conservative Members. Parents should be much more responsible. It distresses me when I find my constituents encouraging their youngsters to go out on to street corners at night because they perhaps make too much noise in the house and the parents are pleased to see them go out. They do not ask questions about what they do. Young people sit around on street corners, annoy other people and, through boredom, get into crime. I should like more of my constituents to take a responsible attitude to their children, but we must be careful about demanding too much through the courts.
It is quite clear that many young people who appear before the courts do not have parents who are in a position to be supportive. They are looked after by, perhaps, a grandparent or a parent who is already struggling to have any control over them. It would be unsatisfactory to cause extra hassle for the person who is giving some support.
I hope that the Committee stage will be constructive and that, even if we have an early general election, we will be able to get something out of the Bill by the time the election comes.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Some of the things that I am about to say will not please the bleeding hearts, the do-gooders or the officials at the Home Office who seem to have a great influence—perhaps too great an influence—on the criminal justice legislation. I welcome the Bill in general terms because it takes us a stage further in dealing with crime and criminals.
I draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to my intervention in his speech, which I think he handled in a rather flippant way. I asked about concurrent sentencing, and he made the point that if people commit two crimes and time was added on instead of the sentence running concurrently, they would be in prison for a very long time. People outside the House do not care at all about that. If someone commits a crime for which he goes to prison for five years, and he committed that crime five times in an evening, why should he serve the same amount of time as someone who has committed the crime only once? That seems illogical and unfair, and it does not reflect people's views.
Before Opposition Members smile, let me say that my views represent those of ordinary working class people in my constituency. You can bet your sweet life that they also represent the views of your constituents but which you are too scared to put forward.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not drag me into these matters.

Mr. Dicks: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect, I should have said the constituents of Opposition Members.
The Bill mentions early release time. Why on earth should we have early release time? A sentence should be a sentence. If people do not behave in prison, we should add time on for bad behaviour, not take time off for good behaviour. There should be no question about it; if they are in prison, they are there to be punished, and that should be the beginning, the middle and the end of it.
Capital punishment has been mentioned. Of course we should have capital punishment. It is the only way to deter murder and it is the only way in which we can get our


hands on and get rid of the terrorists in our midst. People say, "You can make one mistake and wrongly execute somebody." There are about 50 people walking free now who murdered once, served their time, were released, and then murdered a second time. For every person in respect of whom a mistake has been made, 50 people have been murdered who would not have been murdered had those who had committed the crime been executed the first time round. We must bear that in mind when we hear the wailing, whining and whingeing of those who say that capital punishment is not right in a civilised society. How can that be said when our society is not civilised because of the way in which terrorists behave in the streets of this country?
The Bill does not mention corporal punishment. The thug, the football thug and the lager thug know no other vision of life apart from violence. People would like to see dished out to those people the sort of violence and attacks that they dish out to decent people. There would be no compassion whatsoever from the ordinary chap in the street if the football thug got a dose of his own medicine —legalised, of course. Those are the rules that they live by, and they are the rules that they must face up to when they commit crime.
On parental responsibility, the do-gooders say, "Parents do their best; they cannot always be responsible." Why cannot they always be responsible? If they have children, they are their responsibility. Children of 12 or 14 have raped old ladies. If the punishment for those kids, had they been over 18, is 10 years, why the hell do we not give it to the parents? They are responsible for kids of that age behaving in that way. I am sick and tired of people saying that they cannot be responsible for the behaviour of their youngsters and teenagers. What a load of nonsense and rubbish.
On prison rioting, the public could not understand how the violent thugs in Strangeways were allowed to get away with it day after day. It is no good my right hon. and learned Friend telling me that he took advice from people in the Home Office who I believe never walk the streets of this country because they do not know what is going on. The ordinary chap in the street asks, "Why weren't they washed off those roofs? Why weren't they brought down?" To suggest that we had to be careful in case one of them was injured or another fell off is a load of nonsense. There would have been a massive cheer if we had taken tough measures to bring them down.
Of course we hear from the do-gooders and the bleeding hearts about prison conditions—"It is dreadful. There are 19 to a cell 23 hours a day and they have to slop out." If they did not slip in, they would not have to slop out, so what are they worried about? Another thing that we must always remember about prisoners is that all those in prison—I accept, of course, that there will be men who should not be there —are there by choice. Prisoners chose to go to prison when they decided to break the law. The ordinary chap in my constituency does not care about people in prison because they chose to go there. We must constantly bear that point in mind.
Why are we spending millions of pounds on improving prison conditions? The better we make them, the easier it

will be for them to say, "I like going to prison." Old lags come out saying, "I had a good time. That prison is pretty good and that prison is even better."
Two years ago, I looked at the Christmas day menu at Gloucester prison. It was better than the menu enjoyed by many pensioners in my constituency day after day, let alone at Christmas. The priest in charge held a little service and said how sorry he was that the prisoners were away from their families at that festive time. If they had not broken the law, they would not have been apart from their families. I shall tell the House what I do when constituents come to see me and say, "Please, Mr. MP, my husband lives in this constituency but he is in prison in Hull. Could you arrange for him to be moved nearer to me because the family are in distress?" I say, "He should have thought of that before he broke the law and landed in prison. It is his fault. I will not waste my time on him or his circumstances."
I should like to bring rule 43 to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend. It is strange that the most violent criminal in our midst—the child abuser or the sexual offender—gets 100 per cent. protection when he goes to prison whereas another violent man, a robber, has to live in the prison community. Because the other inmates might not like the sex offender—someone who violently assaults a youngster—or what he has done, we have to pull him to one side and protect him; but who protects the young kid whom he violated? Nobody. So why the hell should such a man be protected in prison? He should have to go to prison and face the consequences of his crime. If more such offenders realised the life that they would have in prison and the protection that they would not have, perhaps they would behave and think twice before committing such crimes.
As I have said, the Bill is a good contribution to improving matters, but it does not go as far as I would like. I re-emphasise the important point that I hope that we shall get another opportunity to debate and to vote on capital punishment. Opposition Members may well say that it is a free vote, but they know and we know that they are whipped in to vote against capital punishment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish and Opposition Members know it. I have talked to some Opposition Members about it. The public will not forget the next time that Opposition Members—and those weak Willies among my hon. Friends—oh yes, we have a few——

Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has made a serious allegation. There is no whipping in the Opposition on the important issue of capital punishment. It is a totally free vote. The hon. Gentleman has made a gross calumny against my party.

Mr. Dicks: The hon. Gentleman is being economical with the truth. I am simply saying that the people of this country will not forget Opposition Members and those of my hon. Friends who frustrate them in their demands for a tough line against murder. I remind my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that, if they do nothing else when pushing this Bill through, they must give us an opportunity to vote once again on capital punishment.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I declare an interest as a barrister and a former solicitor. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) who attacked me earlier is not in his place. He had the grace to apologise——

Mr. Sheerman: It is disgraceful. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is leaving the Chamber.

Mr. Bermingham: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to make just one comment on the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who casts insults without the intelligence or the knowledge to back them up. It is easy to play to the gallery, but we are talking about justice, human beings, the right to life and the liberty of subjects. If we could have a perfect system of justice that would not make mistakes, I should treat the hon. Gentleman's comments with little more than the contempt with which I treat them now.
There have been numerous examples, not just in our legal system, but in the legal systems of many other countries, of mistakes being made. When a mistake is made and a prisoner has been executed, the tragedy is that we cannot bring him back. He cannot be compensated. What if we had executed the Guildford Four who have now been cleared? How could we have compensated them? How, in a civilised society, can we descend into the language of the barbaric jungle, like the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, who casts such comments and criticisms because he cannot accept that those of us who have spent a lifetime in the legal system accept that it is capable of making mistakes and we dare not take those risks again?
We have learnt something over the past 100 years, and that is that we cannot always get it right. Sometimes the pressures on a court and on a jury are so great—sometimes the pressure on police officers to achieve results is so great —that mistakes can be made. I do not attack police forces because mistakes have been made, for I accept that police officers are human beings who are capable of verily believing that somebody is guilty and of verily believing that their evidence matches that. They can still be totally wrong, but wrong in an honourable and honest way.
I make this next comment while the Home Secretary is in his place. On Merseyside, we achieved a reduction in the crime rate last year simply because our police force there is increasingly efficient and is led by a very good chief constable, and the officers of the force are a credit to any society. However, this year we are to be capped by £7 million. I have written to the Home Secretary about this and I hope that he will bring pressure on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, because if £7 million is taken from the budget of the Merseyside police we will have a reduced number of police officers and we will not be able to afford the equipment that is necessary to re-equip the force. That affects the policing policy. It reduces the level of policing and the level of crime detection. It is utterly counter-productive. I hope that the Home Secretary can do something to help Merseyside because we deserve it.
I know that those comments do not fall within the scope of the Bill and I apologise for raising that matter, but the opportunity was too good to miss. I hope that I have made my point. I notice that the Home Secretary is smiling, so perhaps he will think about what I have said.
In some ways, the Bill is a tragedy. It does not address the real issue, which is not whether we have longer or harsher sentences or whether we attack parole or regrade juvenile crime, but how we attack crime itself. The real question is how we stop young offenders offending in the first place. If young people do not start to commit crime, there will not be any not-so-young people to continue those criminal ways, and there will not be any older people committing crime. If we can root out part of the juvenile problem, we can root out part of the criminal problem.
The tragedy, which most people seem to forget, is that when somebody robs, wounds, kills or embezzles, there is always a victim. Hon. Members have already said that we do not care enough about the victims in our society and that is more than true. Over the years, I have spoken in the House many times to promote the interests of victims. We have tried to get the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board procedure correct. Great efforts have been made by Lord Carlisle since he took control of the board and I pay due credit to him. We have tried to think how we can compensate in such a way as to put at ease the mind of the old lady whose house has been burgled. The easiest way of compensating the victims is to prevent the crime from occurring. Indeed, crime need not occur if we tackle the problem in the right way.
I intervened earlier in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) to suggest that we should go for earlier identification. I am well aware of the Cardiff experiment, which has been brilliantly successful, and I am equally aware of the Massachusetts experiment, which has been equally successful. In those experiments, the early identification of the criminal has led to preventive medicine—if I can put it that way—that may deter a sizeable proportion of young people from continuing in a life of crime. If we deter the young, that will reduce the number of older youths involved in crime and, therefore, the prison population.
The Home Secretary might care to study the German system. The Germans have suddenly found that they do not need to build new prisons because not as many people are being sent to prison. There has been a sudden downturn, and it might be interesting to discover why. A little investment in that area—nobody has a monopoly of wisdom—might produce massive dividends. It might lead to a position in which not so many prisons or remand institutions were needed. The police could again embrace the concept that, when a crime is committed, there are sufficient manpower and resources to detect it immediately. That requires investment. That requires not screams for longer sentences, more cruel conditions, this, that and the other, but the identifying of the cause of criminality. Once we have identified that, we may be on the road to solving the long-term, rather than the short-term, problem.
I await with interest what happens in Committee. It might just be that we find a measure of agreement that will lead us down the right path on this occasion.

9 pm

Mr. Barry Sheerman: It has been an interesting debate. Those of us who have listened to most of it will have learnt a great deal, unlike one Conservative Member who arrived, made an extraordinary speech and immediately left. Someone recently described the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) as the soft


underbelly of the Tory party on these issues. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is the hairy posterior.

Mr. Norris: Out of order.

Mr. Sheerman: I am sure that it is in order. Perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would like to make a ruling.
During the months that preceded the publication of the Bill, much use was made of the term "twin tracking" to describe the Government's aims in sentencing reform. No one denies that the Government have a dual purpose in framing the legislation, but I prefer to use not that term, but the term "schizoid" to describe the conflicting aims behind the Bill.
There is a genuine desire to reduce the prison population and to introduce proposals to that end. However, there is also a dangerous mixture of punitive sentiment, dogmatic obsession and populist moralising seeping through the Bill's clauses. That heady mix threatens to undermine all the positives in the Bill. Its schizoid nature is revealed most clearly by the Home Secretary's speeches. Indeed, he appears to be unclear about the intention behind the Bill. On some occasions, he has suggested that the Bill aims to reduce the prison population, while on others—for example, at his press conference to launch the Bill—he denies that aim. He repeatedly highlights and hypes the punitive elements in a language that is liable to destroy any tentative steps towards a new sentencing climate.
Let us think about the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech this afternoon. If he is serious about changing the climate of sentencing policy, it does no one any good to talk about slaps on the wrist. For an adult, a slap on the wrist can add up to 240 hours of community service. That is a strange slap on the wrist, if that is how the Home Secretary describes an existing alternative to prison. He also referred to prisoners loafing around in prison. Has he visited Armley and Brixton? Is loafing about in prison what it is all about? I cannot understand his use of that language. He obviously does not realise that it affects the climate in which we debate these serious issues. He does not understand the damage that he does to what is otherwise, sometimes, a sensible case.
There are positive aspects to the Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) outlined them. I shall quickly reiterate them, because we welcome parts of the Bill. We recognise the attempt to establish a statutory framework for sentencing although, as I shall explain later, the proposals to achieve that are weak and insufficient. We especially welcome the statutory criteria contained in clause 1. Such criteria have been beneficial for the under-21s, and it is only right that they should be extended. We welcome the attempt to ensure that the less serious offenders are sentenced for the offence before the court, and not on their previous records.
We support the proposals to introduce unit fines in magistrates courts, to reduce the maximum sentences for theft and non-domestic burglary, and to ensure that 17-year-olds are treated as young persons rather than adults. We wholeheartedly endorse the clauses that implement the Pigot report to reform the law on children's evidence and to provide protection for the child victims of sexual and violent offences.
Even some of the proposals of which we broadly approve, however, are deficient. Why are those who are committed for an indictable offence and have previously served a prison sentence unable to benefit from the criteria set out in clause 1? A parliamentary answer that I received in March revealed that, in 1988, a total of 2,752 offenders—a quarter of those found guilty of indictable offences—received non-custodial sentences. In October I attempted to discover how many of those offenders had previously served a prison sentence, but I was told that that information was not available. It is clear that many hundreds of offenders might be denied the protection of clause I for no good reason. If we do not receive an adequate response about that from the Minister tonight, I hope that we shall be able to discuss this matter in detail in Committee.
The attempt in clause 2 to achieve sentencing for the offence and not the record is hopelessly undermined by clause 3(3). I should be happy if the Home Secretary intervened now to clear up that confusion. Although the clauses may not be exactly contradictory, they are highly confusing. No doubt that kind of drafting gobbledegook will be interpreted by the courts in different ways and that will increase the inconsistency that characterises our present sentencing system. Some courts will use the confusion to increase sentences because of an offender's record. Clause 3(3) is unnecessary and it should be dropped.
Why are unit fines not to operate in Crown courts? I accept that far fewer of relevant cases will appear in such courts, but those fines should be utilised in all courts.
My major concern about the sentencing proposals is their weakness. The Bill is a lost opportunity and the Government have failed to grasp the nettle of sentencing reform at the appropriate time. They have failed to provide an acceptable mechanism to fulfil the aim of reducing the prison population. Despite the Home Secretary's comments to the contrary, that is an important aim.
We are excessively dependent on prison sentences. The United Kingdom imprisons more people in absolute terms and in proportion to its population than any other member state of the Council of Europe. The Government's White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" spelt out the limitations of prison clearly. It says that prison
can be an expensive way of making bad people worse … imprisonment provides many good opportunities to learn criminal skills from other inmates.
The Government should have the courage to propose a sentencing council, but instead they rely on hope. According to the White Paper, it is hoped that
the Court of Appeal will give further guidance building on the legislative framework".
So we are left to rely on a system which, over the decades, has failed this country.
In our view, a sentencing council is one of the ways forward and most people in the informed professional lobby believe that that could be a good alternative to the present system. A sentencing council could be established by primary legislation, which would lay down the sentencing principles to underpin its work.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest expressed doubt about a sentencing council, but that council would provide sentencing guidelines for the range of criminal cases in any interrelated structure. It would not just undertake


monitoring, but would lay down guidelines. That system would be a great advance on current practices whereby the Court of Appeal issues guideline judgments on a limited number of serious cases, but does not provide a coherent and linked structure of guidance. It is vital that guidelines deal with the bulk of everyday offences that come before the courts.
Without a sentencing council, the Government are taking a huge gamble in the Bill. It may contain some good intentions, but there is no mechanism to deliver them. The combined probation and community service order is fraught with dangers. It is likely that that new order will be used in many cases where a simple, single probation order or a community service order would have been used. The Home Office recognises that problem. A recent Home Office costing paper contained an optimistic assumption that 50 per cent. of offenders placed on the combined order will be diverted from prison, half from community service and half from probation. Its pessimistic assumption is that the proportions will be one third, one third and one third.
The memorandum to the Bill suggests that the new order might reduce the prison population by a mere 450 to 750, and there is a further problem in relation to breaches of the order. If an offender who would have received a simple probation order or community service order breaches the new order, he is liable to end up in prison more quickly, since the two sentencing options will be used up in one go. The new order, with its multiple conditions, is more likely to he breached and to be the reverse of what the Government intended will take place. In other words, more people will end up in prison faster.
Without a sentencing council, there are dangers attached to clause 2(2)(b), which deals with violent and sexual offences. I want the Home Secretary to appreciate clearly that the Labour party takes the protection of the public from sexual and violent offences very seriously indeed. The sentences passed by the courts for such offences reflect the gravity with which they are viewed.
But there is an area of concern about the clause because of the failure to define the word "serious," as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook pointed out, and there is a lack of mechanism in that matter. It is possible that some offenders who have committed a less grave offence within that category and who, in the public opinion, would not warrant a sentence above the normal range for the offence will receive a sentence usually reserved for graver crimes.
The implementation of the Carlisle proposals on parole is another risky leap in the dark. When I hear the Home Secretary describe the Carlisle report as a punitive measure designed to keep people in prison longer, I feel sympathy with the authors of the report—I understand that Lord Carlisle was listening to our deliberations closely earlier in the day—because they were a group of people with reform at heart who made it clear that they did not want the prison population to rise as a result of their proposals. They must wince to hear their work being abused by the Home Secretary, for the authors of the Carlisle report intended their proposals to go hand in hand with sentencing reforms to ensure that prisoners did not spend longer in custody.
In accepting Carlisle without making effective sentencing reforms, the Government will be responsible for the prison population rising perhaps by as many as 2,000. Many of the prison reform groups are arguing that, and if I were pitching the case for the reform groups. for

which I have a high opinion, against the sort of back-up information that the Home Secretary has been receiving of late from his Department, I would back the lobby rather than the Home Office officials.

Mr. Waddington: I remember precisely what the Carlisle report said. It expected the courts to reflect in their sentences the fact that the people concerned would, as a result of the changes in the parole arrangements, be serving sentences more closely related to those passed by the courts. There is nothing in Carlisle about setting up an involved system and a sentencing council. It is a simple proposition that it expected the courts to reflect in their sentences the fact that people would serve a larger proportion of their sentences, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the report.

Mr. Sheerman: I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to read what was said in the debate in the other place, when Lord Carlisle dealt with that point very strongly indeed. The Carlisle committee expected that its reforms would be accompanied by a change in sentencing policy, however delivered. The White Paper contains no mechanism to balance one against the other. The result is—I believe that Lord Carlisle holds this opinion—that we shall have a larger prison population as a result of our failure to act.
The Labour party believes that we should consider whether parole eligibility should remain at one third. The Home Secretary should listen, because he misunderstands our opinion on it. I am sure that he does not do so deliberately, but he distorts the Opposition's view of that important matter. The Labour party wants to consider whether eligibility should remain at one third, as it is now, until effective sentencing reforms are introduced.
When we debated that point after publication of the White Paper, the Home Secretary said that the Labour party proposed that violent offenders should be released after serving one third of their sentence. I can only assume that those comments were made as a result of complete ignorance of the parole system and how it works. The Home Secretary must surely be aware that those serving long sentences for violent offences are, rightly, the least successful in obtaining parole.
Statistics contained in the Carlisle report show that only 1 per cent. of those sentenced to more than five years in prison come out on parole before serving half their sentence—that is the truth of the matter. Only 13 per cent. of those serving between four and five years come out before the halfway mark. Many of them are likely to be serving sentences for non-violent offences. Violent offenders rarely come out of prison before serving half their sentence, under the arrangements we support. The Government's proposals for long-term violent offenders merely recognise the status quo. It is the short-term non-violent offenders who will be penalised.
The Bill is an enormous gamble. Its memorandum suggests that the sentencing proposals will reduce the prison population by a mere 1,500. But the parole proposals could well increase the prison population by 2,000. The figure of 1,500 gives every impression of being pulled out of a hat. During the Conservative leadership contest this week we have heard much reference to sums and scribbles on the backs of envelopes early in the career


of one of the contenders. The figure of 1,500 seems to have been scribbled on the back of an envelope and it cannot be justified by any serious research.
I do not believe that the Home Office has any idea of the total effect of that package in the Criminal Justice Bill, which hardly inspires confidence in the proposals. The Home Secretary shakes his head, but most informed people think that the Bill's result in terms of prison population will be a total gamble. Most people argue that predicting the Bill's result is guesswork and that it could either reduce the prison population or increase it. We know for sure that no one really knows the answer. It is strange for a Government to be in that position when introducing a major Criminal Justice Bill, the intention of which was trailed as being a reduction in the prison population. They do not know whether the Bill will deliver that result.
The Government are also displaying a cavalier attitude to the probation service. No doubt the Minister of State, as he normally does, will refer to a window of opportunity for the probation service to enable it to expand its work. But quantity is not everything; quality is so vital in the work. Sometimes, as I sit listening to the Government's opinion of the probation service it makes me think that they want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. On all the criteria, the service is pretty efficient, cost effective, saves an enormous amount of money and has a marvellous body of people working in it who deliver the goods. The Government constantly snipe at the service's morale and performance. The Government always want to change the qualities that have made the service so effective. Quantity is not everything; quality matters, too. The Government are happy to jettison some of the best traditions of the probation service. We believe that their plans will make it harder for officers to win the trust of offenders and will undermine the service's constructive and positive work with offenders—work which is a necessary component of community-based sanctions.
We believe strongly in the alternatives to prison, but we argue that many of the alternatives have not been tried by the judiciary or by the magistrates. We are in favour of expanding the range of options as long as they build on the central tradition of the probation service in a way that is not punitive in the sense in which the Government like to use that term.
The probation service has delivered a good service, but the Home Secretary tends not to say that in his speeches. He should give it a pat on the back, not a slap on the wrist. He should find out why the service is so successful and expand it within its traditions. The difficulty is that the Government are doing the opposite. They are abandoning the traditional spirit and principles behind probation work and replacing them with a punitive philosophy with which most probation officers will find it difficult to work. They believe that it will be much less effective than the system that has hitherto prevailed.
We very much like about 20 per cent. of the Bill and will support and improve that percentage in Committee. Fifty per cent. of it has some good sentiments and intentions, although the drafting is confused. We, as a responsible Opposition, will ensure that the Bill leaves Committee greatly improved. It is the Opposition who have policies,

ideas and vision in this area and who can therefore improve the Bill. About 30 per cent. of the Bill is damnable —wrong in conception and in every possible way.
Let us start with one of the most objectionable parts —curfew orders and electronic tagging or monitoring. The Home Secretary talked about electronic nagging earlier in the most amusing part of his speech—I rather enjoyed that bit. We believe that electronic monitoring is a retrograde step. Measures such as these are misguided and unproductive. It pained me to hear the chairman of Crime Concern, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, speak of tagging in glowing terms. The Opposition have a high regard for Crime Concern, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has examined the American experience. Has he seen the disaster that tagging has been in the United States? Has he looked at the research? I had thought that Crime Concern used proper research and then applied it. The small experiment in electronic tagging in this country was a disaster, and longer-term experiments in the United states have also been disastrous——

Mr.Norris: just for the record, let me say that I was expressing a personal view. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks about Crime Concern, but I should be grateful if he made it clear that I am not speaking for that organisation.
Thanks to the courtesy of the American Government, I spent most of September in America looking at crime, particularly inner city crime, in at least two states: Texas and New Mexico. I was struck by the effectiveness of the tagging schemes there, although I agree that their usefulness has not yet been proven in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman ought to put this in context. It puzzles me when people troop off to the United States to learn about its criminal justice system and its drugs and imprisonment policies. The American criminal justice system is a total disaster. More than 1 million people are in prison over there, and the number is mounting. Schemes such as electronic tagging, which are designed to keep people out of prison, have resulted in a steady increase in the prison population. We need no lessons from the United States. Its criminal justice system is a disaster. I include in that description the use of privately owned penal establishments for remand prisoners.
We object strenuously to curfew orders. Negative measures of that kind are misguided and unproductive. Constructive measures are far more likely to deter offenders from committing further crimes. That view is shared by the courts. Curfew requirements for juveniles have been available to the courts since 1983. Nobody, however, imposes curfew orders. If they are hardly ever used for juveniles, why expand their use? Most magistrates do not impose curfew orders.
Electronic monitoring is a foolish gimmick, with important implications for civil liberties. The evidence from the United States is bleak, and the so-called experiment in this country was a complete fiasco. During the experiment, 50 offenders were tagged, 28 of whom breached the conditions. Faced with such a failure, any other Government would gracefully retreat.

Mr. Waddington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sheerman: No, I do not intend to give way during this part of my argument.
When I listen to the Home Secretary's arguments about tagging I remember that he was very much behind the short, sharp shock of 10 or 11 years ago. The Government loved it; they were all extremely keen on it. Research similarly found that it was a failure but, unperturbed, the Government expanded the scheme. Eventually, they were forced to jettison it because, time and again, research showed that it did not work. It was a long, hard lesson for them. We believe that tagging will suffer the same fate.
The sentencing proposals for children and young persons make depressing reading. The Government's schizoid tendancy comes through clearly. They want to reduce the number of young people in custody, but their punitive instincts get in the way. Sensibly, they suggest that 17-year-olds should come within the more constructive sentencing traditions of the juvenile court, but at the same time they are prepared to tamper with the juvenile system, which is one of the few bright spots in the entire criminal justice system. Why on earth alter a system that works? Why on earth increase the maximum period of community service for 16-year-olds?
The Government make unrealistic and populist suggestions regarding parental responsibility. Of course parental responsibility is important, but can one imagine that in families where there is enormous tension and stress between child and parent and where parents have lost control of their offspring a court bind-over would be effective? It is a ludicrous suggestion. It is far more likely to exacerbate tension and lead to family breakdowns.
The courts already have considerable discretion in these cases. They can use fines and bind-overs where their use seems to be appropriate. I hope that the Minister will tell us why he takes no notice of the Magistrates Association. It does not want these powers; it does not think that they will work. The Magistrates Association does not want the new clauses.
As for the inevitable privatisation proposals, who would have thought 10 years ago that privatisation mania would be extended to remand prisoners and prison escorts? Who would have thought that the Government would want to make money out of locking people up? The deprivation of liberty should be the unique responsibility of the state. We cannot allow the development of a powerful lobby with a vested interest in keeping the remand population high. It would be a disgrace. It is scandalous that the Government's only response to the remand crisis is to build private prisons. It is regrettable that the Government have pushed ahead with those daft ideas before receiving the full report of the Woolf inquiry. Lord Justice Woolf has made it clear that remand prisoners come within his remit. I hope that the Home Secretary will see sense and that Woolf will come through in time so that we can amend the Bill before it is too late.
There are so many things missing from the Bill. Where is the commitment to end the remanding and sentencing of juveniles to prison department establishments? All we have is a clause to end custodial sentencing for 14-year-olds. That is welcome, but it affects only 200 young people.
Where are the clauses to tackle racism in the criminal justice system? There is a hint of amnesia from the Home Secretary on that. Those are vital provisions if there is to be equality of treatment before the law. What a slap in the face—not a pat on the head—for the black community to be consulted in October and ignored in November The

remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) about the black and Asian community were disgraceful in a civilised society. It is a disgrace to suggest in the stereotyped way that he did that the black community has a tendency to criminality. I hope that the Home Secretary and the Minister will repudiate his remarks.
Where are the clauses on victims' rights and crime prevention? Many of my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members have talked about those enormous gaps. There is nothing on crime prevention, prisoners' rights or miscarriages of justice.
This is a weak and limited Bill. At its heart it lacks an effective mechanism to operationalise some of its good intentions. Its schizoid nature threatens to undermine its good parts. Sentencers are being sent a dual message. All our experience suggests that only the punitive message will prevail. That makes it a bad Bill.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I woke up on the morning after my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State launched the Criminal Justice Bill two Fridays ago to look at the leader columns in the Daily Mail and The Guardian. Both the leaders in those excellent newspapers praised my right hon. and learned Friend for the excellence of his Bill. That made me think that we may have got it more or less right. We welcome the approbation that we have received from most of the penal affairs groups. They may have quarrels over particular details—they may want sentencing councils or they may not like electronic monitoring—but they like the overall drift of the Bill. Such points were recognised by the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). I hope that we shall hear the voice of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn in Committee.
I want to have a word with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) because he made several important points. He seems to be screwing up his notes and destroying them. They deserve to be preserved for posterity. He wants the Bill to be improved in Committee. I intend to debate the Bill with the same seriousness as we debated the Criminal Justice Act 1988. During the passage of that Act I was pleased to have the opportunity to say publicly, for example, that some of the issues in the Act found their fountainhead in ideas that had been developed by the Labour party. In 1986, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) took the first important step to ensure that victims of rape were not identified in the press, and we built on that in the 1988 Act. I hope that such an approach can mark our discussions on the parts of the Bill where there is no party political dissent. Many parts of the Bill have nothing to do with party politics and everything to do with sentencing practice, common sense and trying to ensure that offenders get their just deserts and victims are compensated. That is the way in which I hope that the Committee will approach the Bill.
In 1988, our approach to the Bill did not just stop with my occasionally tossing a bouquet to the Labour party Front Bench. There was even collusion between the Opposition Front Bench and the Conservative Front Bench. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who now speaks on the environment, and I were under


severe pressure from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) to do something about children's evidence and video-taping. A Committee knows nothing more fearsome than the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme when she is enraged and putting people under pressure. Enormous strength of character was required for the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Ito resist her blandishments. That led to the Pigot report, and I hope that the encompassing of most of that report in the Bill will receive her approval. I shall return to her remarks because she made it clear that she wants us to go a little further on one or two points, which I look forward to with some trepidation.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland rather generously mentioned one of the effects of the enactment of the Bill. On reflection, I thought that I was a little rude to him in the debate, but unlike some right hon. and hon. Members I am quite prepared to apologise and hope that he accepts it. In five, 10 or 15 years' time, the Bill may be seen as one of the benchmarks in the development of the criminal justice system. Until the 16th and 17th centuries, the purpose of prisons was not to punish but to hold people until they were produced in court. Generally, the capital sentence was passed on them or something disagreeable was done to their person. Prisons were not intended to punish, with the exception of debtors.
In the 16th and 17th centuries, we saw a great change in the system from executing or flogging people to imprisoning them. Prison has been seen as the right punishment throughout the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Everything else has been seen as an alternative to prison.
When the Bill is enacted—I do not know whether I am right or wrong, but time will tell—it will be seen as a benchmark and as a twin-track approach to crime and punishment that leads to fewer prisoners being imprisoned for longer for serious and violent crimes and people who used to be imprisoned for minor or petty crimes being punished more effectively in the community. That is the underlying principle of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield made several points. First, he spoke of the drafting of the Bill. He should beware of being rude about parliamentary draftsmen, who, particularly in this country, excel in drafting Bills. A Bill is drafted under ministerial instruction, but it is a pity if the hon. Gentleman takes incitement from the remarks of a don that he heard on the "Today" programme this morning about sloppy drafting—a rather confused and eccentric don, and as I used to be one, I know one when I hear one. He said that the Bill was a load of codswallop because, for example, it contains no reference to mitigation. That don—I do not know his name, but if I did I would hope to forget it very quickly and would ensure that none of my children went to his college—had not got as far as clause 3, where "mitigation" is mentioned. President Routh of Magdalene college was the last of my constituents to wear a full-bottomed wig, rather like yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He told some young pupil, "Always verify your references." That comment applies to the remarks that have been made about the Bill and that have been picked up by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. If he does not verify his references, he should at least read the Bill.

Mr. Sheerman: My comments had nothing to do with The Guardian article but were based on what we all knew—that the Government set impossible demands for the parliamentary draftsmen. We know that they sent the Bill back and said, "This is awful and cannot be put into any framework that we know of." We know about the to-ing and fro-ing of the Bill. It is the Government's fault, not that of the parliamentary draftsmen.

Mr. Patten: I am afraid that the Labour party seems prone to making allegations without any foundation. The hon. Gentleman said something that is not a fact and made a grievous mistake. He clearly does not understand the way in which such a Bill should be drafted. He asked why the Bill did not contain any mention of "seriousness". No Bill, with all the schedules in the world, and no sentencing council, with all the wisdom in the world, could lay down for each conceivable crime every point that would have to be taken into account in judging seriousness.
The courts have been judging seriousness for years. In a domestic burglary case, a judge will consider the amount of property stolen, the fear felt by the occupier, the breach of trust involved and the element of premeditation. In each of those ways the courts are used to applying the principle of seriousness. The hon. Member for Huddersfield is asking for the impossible if he thinks that there is any possibility in any statute or on any sentencing council of completely defining seriousness.
I regretted a bit what the hon. Member for Huddersfield said about the probation service. He suggested that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I did not value it and that the probation service did not look forward with interest to the challenges that the Bill and future reorganisations of the service might bring. That is not right. Do not just watch our lips; watch the cheque books. Look at the line in the public expenditure White Paper, which shows that, over the next three years, there will be a 27 per cent. real increase in spending on the probation service. Look at the extra 800 or 900 probation officers who will be employed. Look at articles in the past week or so by the chairman of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation. Of course, he does not like this or that part of the Bill, but the Bill presents an enormous opportunity for the probation service. I am convinced that the professionalism of the service, with its exercise of caring authority, will make some parts of the Bill work in a way that the hon. Member for Huddersfield thinks is impossible.
It was entirely characteristic of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that at no stage did he mention victims. He mentioned offenders and raised several questions, led by one about delays in remand. By spring next year, the 112-day limit on remands will be in place in London and in the eight other counties in the south-east where it is not in place now. Implementation has taken a long time because of differences in court practice.
Several questions about standards in private remand centres were raised. I understand why the House wants to ensure that prisoners on remand are kept in good conditions. The contracts will be kept open. There will be open competitive tendering. The prison service will be able to enter the bidding for private remand centres. A Home Office civil servant, probably prison officer grade, will be


appointed as the controller in the different remand centres to ensure that standards are met. All the functions are set out clearly in clauses 66 and 68.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked why we were introducing minimum standards for remand centres but were not introducing minimum standards for prisons. We are concentrating on doing something about the prison estate, which, over the generations before 1979, fell into a shameful condition. There will be a record number of prisons. The new sanitation services being put in place will ensure that, by 1994, 75 per cent. of prisoners will have access to night sanitation. We are not talking about it; we are actually doing it. We shall provide straightforward—and certainly not soft—conditions. We are also waiting for the recommendations of Lord Justice Woolf, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said that he will wait for the recommendations of the Woolf committee to see whether there are any recommendations about the introduction of minimum standards.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook also raised an important point about the punishments available for white-collar criminals, which was a point that interested him. A cocktail of punishments is available for white-collar criminals outside prison. We are, of course, talking about minor criminals because major City fraudsters who breach a trust seriously and who are found guilty will probably be given a long prison sentence, as hon. Members of all parties would agree was right.
There are several ingredients for minor white-collar criminals, including compensation for the victim. When the courts decide to punish someone outside prison, they should put even the fine second to compensation for the victim. That is a cultural change in sentencing, which all of us want to see. The ingredients include, as I said, compensation plus—and I emphasise the word "plus"—a fine, plus community service for up to 100 hours, plus a curfew, plus attendance at the probation centre—the old attendance centre—plus a probation sentence as a sentence of the court. If all those ingredients were applied, some minor white-collar criminals might see that as a lot tougher than spending three or four months in gaol. I hope that it would be a lot tougher, and that it would lead to the rehabilitation of some of those people and, most importantly, to repayment for the victim. I am sometimes angry when minor criminals go to gaol because they are prevented from repaying victims. If the courts use compensation orders more, there will be far more satisfaction for victims.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook talked about our attitude to parental responsibility, and the argument on that swung backwards and forwards during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) feels strongly that much of the recent increase in crime is connected to the breakdown of parental responsibility. Opposition Members whose views I respect, such as the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), said that it would be difficult to use the criminal justice system alone to make parents responsible. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary recognises that and he said earlier that he did not expect the criminal justice system to cure all the problems of children offending.
The provisions about parental responsibility are just one limb of the Government's programme. We have introduced provisions in the Children Act 1989 on welfare to help children in trouble and to set up children's centres.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science are also actively discussing whether we can do far more about truancy to ensure not that we punish children, but that we get them to school. A cocktail of provisions is coming from the Government, which together represent a far more integrated approach to dealing with children offending and with parental responsibility. The criminal justice measures are just one part of that mixture.
I now refer with considerable pleasure to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buxton——

Mr. Lawrence: For Burton.

Mr. Patten: I beg my hon. and learned Friend's pardon. He made an important point about the need——

Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend kindly remember for future speeches that Burton is the brewing centre of the United Kingdom? He should never forget that.

Mr. Patten: I look forward to discussing the issues later in the XXXX bar.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton asked whether there would be sufficient resources for probation reports. Over the next three years, we shall put 54 per cent. more in cash terms and 27 per cent. more in real terms into the probation service, which should lead to between 800 and 1,000 more probation officers. There will also be national standards for the writing of probation reports.
My hon. and learned Friend was also interested to know whether sentencing could take records and the evil disposition of a repeat offender into account. If my hon. and learned Friend, with his characteristic care, reads clause 3(3), he will find that those matters can be taken into account in sentencing by having regard to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton was the first of several of my hon. Friends to raise the issue of capital punishment. It was taken up by my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton, for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who made such an interesting speech. Thank heaven that my hon. Friend puts the R into robust in what he says. I think that my hon. and learned Friend and my three hon. Friends wish to see the return of capital punishment and all wish to debate the matter—[interruption.] Order! Bolsoversit down!

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the Minister is seeking to do your job. I know that there is disarray within the Government, but the right hon. Gentleman has no business talking like that.

Mr. Speaker: I quite agree.

Mr. Patten: That is right—I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is sitting down like a good boy. Opposition Members need the smack of firm discipline, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton, for Thanet, North and for Hayes and Harlington all wish there to be a debate on capital punishment at an early date. I know that junior Ministers cannot stray into the area of business management, which is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I shall,


of course, convey the views of my hon. and learned Friend and of my hon. Friends to my right hon. Friend as soon as possible.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West described himself as an old lag of the Criminal Justice Bill world. He raised some important issues, which I know he will reintroduce in Committee. I thought that it was a bit ripe when he said that we were not putting enough resources into the prison officers' establishment. As I recall the figures, there was one prison officer for every six prisoners in 1918. There was one officer for every three prisoners in 1979, and one for every two in 1990. It is a bit much to suggest that we are not staffing our prisons properly.
Many important matters were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). I share his concern about attacks on the police and I shall consider carefully what he said about that and his other arguments.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) has had enough plaudits from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber during the evening. He does an invaluable job as chairman of Crime Concern. If I may say so, with his record on civil liberties he was able to demolish the facetious and fallacious arguments that were used to suggest that electronic monitoring somehow trammels people's civil liberties. He did so in a manner that was masterly and brilliant.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has considerable experience as a justice of the peace and in working with young people. I listened with great care to what he had to say. I hope that he accepts that the figures that I gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton show that the probation service will receive a considerable injection of money and of additional men and women, even if he thinks that the figures are not high enough. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was generous about some parts of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North drew a clear distinction between violent offenders who perhaps should receive maximum sentences and more effective community punishments. The entire House listened with care to what he had to say.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn reflected the importance of drawing a clear division between violent and non-violent crime. This reforming and radical Bill of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary gives clear signposts and makes it clear how that division should be arrived at.
I cannot refer now to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington because he is no longer here, so I shall move on, lastly, to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). I apologise that I was not in the Chamber to hear all his speech. The hon. Gentleman referred to Germany, and I have visited that country. I have spoken to the judiciary in Germany about the ways in which changes have been brought about there and have been told that they have been made largely by talk or discussion and not by additional resources. That is what I was told during my recent visit when I talked to those concerned about changes in sentencing practice.
The word "sentencing" brings me back to the theme that has run throughout our debate—the need for a sentencing council. That need has been pressed on us by

right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. At the end of a long process that begins with a crime that may or may not be seen or reported, recorded or prosecuted, there may be a prosecution, which may or may not be successful, and a judge or a recorder such as the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West will have to take one of those awesome, difficult and lonely decisions about what sentence or bail to give.
I remember a speech made by the Lord Chief Justice in the other place a few years ago in which he referred to the loneliness of the judge. Experts around the Chamber such as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook want to make judges, recorders, deputy recorders and magistrates a lot less lonely by giving them the advice of a sentencing council. If a sentencing council is to be only advisory, what happens to it if the judiciary does not like what it says? In that case, we might turn to Parliament and say that it should have more statutory force. Suppose a sentencing council says, "We would like you, as a Government, to suggest that there should be changes of this sort, that sort or some other sort in sentencing practice." As the sovereign body, the House might decide that it does not like the guidance of the sentencing council. Would such a sentencing council, which I am sure would have the great and the good on it, be worth the deliberations that have been expended on it?
We could look at the alphabet of legal experts and start at A with my noble Friend Lord Alexander in another place, who is the president of Justice. He might believe that a sentencing council would be good. Professor Ashworth has written two books on sentencing councils, which offer another scheme. However, if we want a sentencing council, we are drawn in the world of sentencing down the following route: if an advisory sentencing council does not work, it must be mandatory. [HON. MEMBERS: "Boring."] Some Opposition Members should have been in the Chamber earlier when sentencing councils were referred to in all the speeches.
If we are drawn down the route of an advisory sentencing council, it will never be effective. It must have a statutory basis. If we have a statutory sentencing council, it will end up like the experience in the United States. Besides having a ration in Minnesota of prison places during any one year, the judges in that state are presented with a sentencing grid. They have 43 offences on one side and six criminal histories on the other. A computer virtually works out the sentence given to the court. All that makes me suspect that there is a hidden agenda in the Labour party in the suggestion of a sentencing council. We know the Opposition's hidden agendas in respect of other aspects of the criminal justice system. Back in October, we saw the hon. Member for Huddersfield having his wrists slapped by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook for having raised the veil on the Labour party's plans to put the police under local authority control. We know that that will be in the next Labour manifesto.
Equally, on parole, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, having given a public greeting to the proposals, said that, after all, he wanted his party to move towards a one third reduction in the length of time that people spent in prison. Again we can see what the right hon. Gentleman really wants to do—to reduce the number of people in our prisons not because they should not be there but because he simply wishes to see fewer people in prison. Executive release is clearly what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook wants. Labour wants also to tie


judges' hands. I tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that the threats to the independence of the criminal justice system and the police are formidable.
The Bill marks a watershed in the future of the criminal justice system by this radical and reforming Government of the past 11 years and it will see us into the 1990s and the next century.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 190,Noes 350.

Division No. 7]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Galloway, George


Allen, Graham
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
George, Bruce


Armstrong, Hilary
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Gordon, Mildred


Barron, Kevin
Gould, Bryan


Battle, John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Beckett, Margaret
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bell, Stuart
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Grocott, Bruce


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Benton, Joseph
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bermingham, Gerald
Haynes, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Blair, Tony
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Blunkett, David
Henderson, Doug


Boateng, Paul
Hinchliffe, David


Boyes, Roland
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Bradley, Keith
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Buckley, George J.
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Illsley, Eric


Canavan, Dennis
Ingram, Adam


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clay, Bob
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Clelland, David
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lambie, David


Cohen, Harry
Lamond, James


Coleman, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Corbett, Robin
Lewis, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Litherland, Robert


Cousins, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Cox, Tom
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Crowther, Stan
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
Loyden, Eddie


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McAllion, John


Cunningham, Dr John
McAvoy, Thomas


Darling, Alistair
McCartney, Ian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McKelvey, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McLeish, Henry


Dixon, Don
McNamara, Kevin


Dobson, Frank
McWilliam, John


Doran, Frank
Madden, Max


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Eadie, Alexander
Marek, Dr John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Martlew, Eric


Fatchett, Derek
Maxton, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meacher, Michael


Fisher, Mark
Michael, Alun


Flannery, Martin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Foster, Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foulkes, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Fraser, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Galbraith, Sam
Mowlam, Marjorie





Mullin, Chris
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Murphy, Paul
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Nellist, Dave
Short, Clare


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Skinner, Dennis


O'Brien, William
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


O'Hara, Edward
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Parry, Robert
Snape, Peter


Patchett, Terry
Soley, Clive


Pendry, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


Pike, Peter L.
Steinberg, Gerry


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Stott, Roger


Prescott, John
Straw, Jack


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Radice, Giles
Turner, Dennis


Randall, Stuart
Vaz, Keith


Redmond, Martin
Walley, Joan


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Reid, Dr John
Wareing, Robert N.


Richardson, Jo
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Robertson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rogers, Allan
Wilson, Brian


Rooker, Jeff
Winnick, David


Rooney, Terence
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Rowlands, Ted



Ruddock, Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Allen MacKay, and Mr. Martyn Jones.


Sheerman, Barry





NOES


Adley, Robert
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Aitken, Jonathan
Browne, John (Winchester)


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Allason, Rupert
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Alton, David
Budgen, Nicholas


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Amos, Alan
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Butcher, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashby, David
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Atkins, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, David
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carttiss, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Cartwright, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cash, William


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Batiste, Spencer
Chapman, Sydney


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chope, Christopher


Beggs, Roy
Churchill, Mr


Beith, A. J.
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bellotti, David
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bendall, Vivian
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Colvin, Michael


Benyon, W.
Conway, Derek


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cope, Rt Hon John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cormack, Patrick


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Couchman, James


Body, Sir Richard
Critchley, Julian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Boswell, Tim
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Peter
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Devlin, Tim


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dicks, Terry


Bowis, John
Dorrell, Stephen


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dover, Den


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dunn, Bob


Brazier, Julian
Durant, Tony


Bright, Graham
Dykes, Hugh


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Eggar, Tim






Emery, Sir Peter
Irvine, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Irving, Sir Charles


Evennett, David
Jack, Michael


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Jackson, Robert


Fallon, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Favell, Tony
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Fookes, Dame Janet
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Forman, Nigel
Key, Robert


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Kilfedder, James


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Forth, Eric
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fox, Sir Marcus
Kirkwood, Archy


Franks, Cecil
Knapman, Roger


Freeman, Roger
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


French, Douglas
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fry, Peter
Knowles, Michael


Gale, Roger
Knox, David


Gardiner, George
Lang, Ian


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Latham, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Lawrence, Ivan


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lee, John (Pendle)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Goodlad, Alastair
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Lilley, Peter


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Livsey, Richard


Gorst, John
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gregory, Conal
Lord, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Grist, Ian
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Grylls, Michael
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hague, William
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Maclean, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Maclennan, Robert


Hampson, Dr Keith
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Hannam, John
Madel, David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Maginnis, Ken


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Malins, Humfrey


Harris, David
Mans, Keith


Haselhurst, Alan
Maples, John


Hawkins, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Hayes, Jerry
Marlow, Tony


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hayward, Robert
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mates, Michael


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Maude, Hon Francis


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hill, James
Mellor, David


Hind, Kenneth
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Miller, Sir Hal


Holt, Richard
Mills, Iain


Hordern, Sir Peter
Miscampbell, Norman


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Mitchell, Sir David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Moate, Roger


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Monro, Sir Hector


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Howells, Geraint
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Moss, Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Mudd, David





Neale, Gerrard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Needham, Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Neubert, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Steen, Anthony


Nicholls, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stevens, Lewis


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Norris, Steve
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stokes, Sir John


Page, Richard
Sumberg, David


Paice, James
Summerson, Hugo


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pawsey, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Portillo, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thorne, Neil


Price, Sir David
Thornton, Malcolm


Raffan, Keith
Thurnham, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Redwood, John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tracey, Richard


Rhodes James, Robert
Tredinnick, David


Riddick, Graham
Trimble, David


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trippier, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Trotter, Neville


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Viggers, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rost, Peter
Walden, George


Rowe, Andrew
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wallace, James


Ryder, Richard
Waller, Gary


Sackville, Hon Tom
Walters, Sir Dennis


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Ward, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Whitney, Ray


Shelton, Sir William
Widdecombe, Ann


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wood, Timothy


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Speller, Tony



Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Sir George Young and Mr. David Lightbown.


Squire, Robin

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
The business for the remainder of this week will now be as follows:
WEDNESDAY 2I NOVEMBER—Until about seven o'clock, second reading of the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill.
Motion on the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 (Amendment of Schedule) Order 1990.
THURSDAY 22 NOVEMBER—Debate on the Opposition motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government.
FRIDAY 23 NOVEMBER—AS I announced last week, there will be a debate on the GATT round of trade negotiations on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: Since clearly the Prime Minister commands the support of only 204 Members of this House and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition commands the support of 227 Members, should not the Prime Minister resign now? Is it not clear that there is not now, and never ever again will be, an honest majority in this House in support of the Prime Minister's policies? Is it not clear beyond doubt that the party of government in charge of the affairs of this nation is hopelessly and irreconcilably split from lop to bottom? In those circumstances, would it not be far better for the people of Britain to decide who the next Prime Minister should be in a general election as soon as possible?

Mr. MacGregor: As I made clear this afternoon, there was a clear and large majority for the vote at the end of the Queen's Speech debates. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits to see what the majority vote is on Thursday evening.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is likely to be in order in the debate on Thursday, if others raise the question of the number of votes, to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the election for the leadership of the Labour party in 1983 there were 101 votes for the other three candidates and 102 for the present leader of the Labour party?

Mr. MacGregor: I suspect that that and a number of similar points will be made during the debate on Thursday.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I underline what the Leader of the House said. I ask hon. Members to put questions about the change of business and not to make debating points which may well be made in the debate.

Mr. James Wallace: I am sure that the Leader of the House is only too grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for tabling the one motion which can be guaranteed to unite the Conservative party—[Interruption.]—albeit a superficial unity. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that with important issues facing the country—on our relationship with our European partners, about the economy and about how the country

is governed—we shall be governed by a broken-backed Government and that the only vote of confidence is the vote of the people?

Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are many issues on which we on the Government Benches are agreed and united.

Mr. William Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the Members of the Ulster Unionist party find it not so much surprising as astonishing that the motion should have been tabled at this moment? May we be assured that there will be a calm and rational debate on the real issues that have divided not only the Conservative party but the Labour party—the relationship between this nation and the other nations in Europe and on the question whether we are to become part of a full federal Europe?

Mr. MacGregor: The choosing of the debate on Thursday was not a matter for me. I am sure that many subjects will be raised during that debate.

Mr. Stuart Bell: The Leader of the House was gracious enough to refer to the Queen's Speech and to say that the Government had received a big majority in the vote at the end of that debate, even though we did not see in the Queen's Speech any reference to a proposed referendum on the exchange rate mechanism. May we be assured that the Prime Minister will, from the Dispatch Box, respond to the motion of censure and not evade the debate, as she did recently?

Mr. MacGregor: It is not normal to announce speakers during a business statement—[Interruption.]—and that is a statement of fact. But I can tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will open for the Government, as is normal in such debates.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this must be the first time in parliamentary history that the Leader of the Opposition has tabled a censure motion not to wound or bring down the Prime Minister but to save her? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sillars: Is he further aware that if the Leader of the Opposition succeeds in saving Thatcher, thereby retaining the poll tax, the people of Scotland will exact a price from him at Paisley?

Mr. MacGregor: It is not for me to comment on the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the position of the Labour party.

Mr. John Morris: May we be told who will be handed the poisoned chalice of being the second speaker for the Government in Thursday's debate?

Mr. MacGregor: As I said, it is normal to announce the speakers for any debate in the normal way, not on the business statement.

Mr. Donald Anderson: When the Prime Minister opens for the Government, will she be using a broken bat?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think it is necessary for me to comment on that.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Leader of the House aware that I have some sympathy with him tonight, having been attacked by the former Liberals, now the Liberal Democrats, and the Scottish National party? After all is said and done, they voted with the Tories in 1979 to bring down the Labour Government. Their great fear—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) has been here before; that is his big problem—is that we shall succeed on Thursday and bring down the Government.

Mr. MacGregor: I am becoming increasingly aware that the questions being directed to me tonight have nothing to do with me or with the business statement.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that 152 Tory Members have impaled the Prime Minister on the barbed wire, may we assume that, in Thursday's debate, Ministers who failed to support the Prime Minister in today's ballot will be brought to heel for failing to carry out collective responsibility?

Mr. MacGregor: As I said this afternoon, the hon. Gentleman has a vivid imagination, and I do not know where he gets his facts from.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Given that the Leader of the House has full control over the announcement that he made this evening, why did he not announce a two-day debate for Wednesday and Thursday? That might have given the Prime Minister two chances to drag herself away from the ballet to come here and justify the past 11 years of attacks on working class people.

Mr. MacGregor: It makes sense to rearrange the business as I have, so that the House can take the Second Readings of the two Bills that we were due to take this week, which is precisely what I have done.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: As Thursday's debate will probably be televised live, and as the Government's previous diktat to the broadcasting authorities was that they should ensure that everyone got a fair kick of the ball, may we take it that the Prime Minister will be kicking off and Tarzan will be taking the penalties in extra time?

Mr. MacGregor: Who is called in the debate is not a matter for me.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the Leader of the House accept that, if we work out the arithmetic, there is an overwhelming majority in the House against the Prime Minister's flagship, the poll tax? We would expect, particularly in Scotland, notwithstanding the result on Thursday, that legislation would immediately be brought in because the people of Scotland resisted the tax by every peaceful means, including non-payment. It is that signal, and that signal alone, that has brought the Government to their present plight.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman raises points that have nothing to do with the business statement.

Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Leader of the House seen the Press Association headlines this evening? There have been many amazing headlines, but the one to which I shall draw his attention——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this about the business statement?

Mr. Banks: It is, Mr. Speaker. The headline says:
Patten warns of extinction threat.
It goes on to say that one third of the world's species will
be extinct by 2025. I am not sure whether that was a reference to the time or the year. Will the Leader of the House tell the public—because many people do not know—what precisely will happen if the Government lose the motion on Thursday?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman should wait to see what the result is on Thursday. In view of what he has just said, I have not the slightest doubt that he will be extremely disappointed.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House confirm that on Friday there will be a debate on the general agreement on tariffs and trade? Can he assure the House that a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry will be present, because this broken-backed Government cannot now enter such negotiations—they concern the replacement of the multi-fibre arrangement and its phasing out—with any confidence because of the continuing balloting? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that jobs in the textile industry are being lost because of the Government's inactivity? Does he not realise that the people of Bradford, like the rest of the nation, want to vote on this issue and get the Tories out? They do not want business statements from the Leader of the House; they want an announcement from the Prime Minister of a general election which would let people decide.

Mr. MacGregor: I have already commented several times today on the point about a general election. I can confirm that a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry will deal with the GATT debate, and I agree that textiles will be an issue in it. I wholly reject the hon. Gentleman's charge about the position of the Government.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under contracts entered into under the Act, or payments to or in respect of inspectors of probation appointed under the Act;
(2) any sums so required for defraying the expenses of the Parole Board, or any expenses incurred by members of lay panels appointed under the Act;
(3) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act; and
(4) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Orders of the Day — Shipbuilding

[Relevant document: European Community Document No. 9416/90 on the shipbuilding industry in the Community in 1989.]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8097/90 relating to aid for shipbuilding; and supports the Government's intention to agree to the adoption of this Directive as a further step towards establishing a soundly based shipbuilding industry in the European Community.
The document is the European Commission's proposal for a seventh directive on aid to shipbuilding, following the sixth directive which expires on 31 December 1990. The final rounds of negotiations on the directive are under way in Brussels and it forms a substantial item in the Industry Council's agenda for 26 November, at which I hope to represent the Government.
The sixth directive is generally considered to have worked well in that it has enabled the Community's industry to survive by providing production and restructuring aid. The proposal for the seventh directive was, therefore, based closely on the text of the sixth. The Commission proposes that it should last for two years.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister take this opportunity to rectify a flaw in the directive because of which naval shipyards that were put into the private sector to compete on merchant shipping orders have been denied intervention fund assistance? Does not he realise that companies such as A and P Appledore (Aberdeen) Ltd. in my constituency have suffered badly because of this flaw? If he wants straight competition, let him have it, and let such yards have access to the intervention funds on which their existence may well depend.

Mr. Leigh: That point concerns many hon. Members, especially in the light of the Cammell Laird problem and of the other problems that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned. We have checked this with the European Commission. A watertight agreement was made, when those yards were privatised, that they would not be eligible for state aid. The Commission has made it clear that it has no objection to merchant shipbuilding taking place at Cammell Laird, but under no circumstances will it countenance our returning to the Commission and receiving state aid. That is the problem. We have gone over this ground again and again. I wish that I could help the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that I have at least described the position clearly.

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister says that a watertight agreement was made. The words "exceptional circumstances" were included in it. Given the support that the European Community is to give to east German shipyards, are not we facing exceptional circumstances?

Mr. Leigh: I am aware of those words. We went over that ground with the Commission. Unfortunately, it is unwilling to budge on that point. I shall deal in a moment with east German shipyards. Our view is that we should

stand firm against the Germans on the restructuring of east German shipyards. It would add to the existing overcapacity in shipbuilding.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Leigh: I am in the hands of the House. This is a short debate and a number of hon. Members want to take part in it. I am happy to give way and answer questions, but it will lengthen my speech.

Mr. Cryer: Can the Minister summarise the position as outlined by my hon. Friends by saying that the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) appears to be absolutely right?

Mr. Leigh: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. As the most junior member of the Government, I think that I should be wise to stick to the sixth and seventh directives.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leigh: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene later in the debate, I shall happily give way, but I want to make some progress. That is only fair to hon. Members who wish to take part in this short debate.
The new directive should be viewed against the background of improving markets in shipbuilding throughout the world and a diminishing gap between prices in Europe and the far east. The justification for a programme of state aid to shipbuilding in Europe has always been the low prices charged by shipbuilders in Korea and Japan in particular, which, over the last 20 years, have enlarged the supply base against a decreasing market for ships. The prices charged by far east suppliers in years gone by cannot be explained by superior efficiency. In the more recent past, all shipbuilders have suffered because of initial oversupply, followed by the combined effects in the 1980s of a downturn in world trade and an excess of ships. The prospects now are for an improvement in trade and in shipping rates and, at long last, for an end to the life of ships that were built so cheaply 20 to 25 years ago.
There is a price improvement in far east yards. The European industry, having rationalised, is catching up. We can probably see an end to contract-related production aid within the lifetime of the seventh directive. If the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) wishes to intervene, I am happy to give way to him now.

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister's introductory remarks suggest that the Government went in to bat for changes to the seventh directive. Logically, therefore, ought not he invite the House not to accept it, so that his negotiating position is improved rather than weakened?

Mr. Leigh: I believe that the seventh directive is an improvement on the sixth directive. It is clearer. Given the worldwide improvement in shipbuilding prospects and the fact that we have gone through so much pain in restructuring our industry, there is everything to be gained by working with our Community partners to get the seventh directive on the stocks. We have restructured our industry, having reached agreement with our European partners, and therefore we can look forward to a rosy prospect for the shipbuilding industry. Nothing would be gained by the House not agreeing to the seventh directive.
As for other international negotiations that are taking place in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris to increase the powers of the revised general agreement on shipbuilding—the RGA—to which the United Kingdom is already a signatory, the increase in powers will seek to bring to an end all state aid for shipbuilding among all OECD members, including Korea, which joined specifically for these negotiations. Although there is no formal time limit, it is hoped to complete the OECD negotiations in 1991 with implementation in two to three years.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Can the Minister give the House any assurance that other countries will not use secretive means to continue to support their shipbuilding industries to the detriment of the United Kingdom and what remains of our limited industry in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I do not think that he would expect me to comment on it in detail except to say that the European Commission keeps a close eye on what is going on. We keep a close eye on what is going on elsewhere in the Community and others keep a close eye on us. Within the terms of European aid and what is allowable in terms of subsidies to shipbuilding, the opportunities for cheating within the European Community are very slight, if not non-existent. However—I hope that the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) will accept this—having done so much to restructure our industry, surely it is in our interest to see subsidies phased out in an orderly and sustained way throughout the Community. If they are not phased out, we could be in even more difficulties in relation to competition with shipbuilders in southern Europe.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose——

Mr. Leigh: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress, I shall give way to him with pleasure. I am anxious to be a servant of the House in these matters and I want to let hon. Members make their points.
I believe that such an agreement would be of great benefit to shipbuilding world wide. I heartily commend it to the House. The OECD negotiations are also relevant to the required duration of the seventh European shipbuilding directive—a contentious issue to which I shall return.
Three areas of contention are due to be discussed and, we hope, resolved at the Industry Council on 26 November to which I have referred—the duration of the directive, the extension of a transitional introductory period for Spain and whether a commitment to a progressive reduction in subsidy levels should be written into the text. Other areas that have proved contentious and where negotiated solutions are in sight are whether the directive should cover only new building or also—as in the sixth directive —ship conversion, a German request to exclude from the scope of the directive a proportion of the aid offered to ship owners, a tightening of the rules on investment aid and United Kingdom concern at the proposal that shipbuilding yards closed with closure aid could not be reopened without the Commission's prior approval. I shall discuss those in turn.
On the duration of the directive, article 11 proposes a two-year life for the directive and we support that. To do anything else would compromise the Community's

negotiating stance in the OECD discussions to remove all subsidies from shipbuilding. A longer period would suggest to the other participants that the Community did not take its proposal seriously. Italy, Spain, France and Belgium have argued for a four-year period. Greece and Portugal have proposed three years, while Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands would prefer one year but would settle for two. It is unlikely to be left to the Council for final settlement.
On the extension of the introductory period for Spain, the Spanish have claimed that they have not had sufficient time to rationalise their industry in line with the requirements of the sixth directive. After intensive bilateral discussions, the European Commission and the Spanish authorities have produced a plan designed to complete restructuring of the industry by the end of 1992. The plan, which will be strictly monitored by the Commission, calls for aid to be provided for only one additional year rather than the two years for which the plan is designed to run. Given the efforts that we in the United Kingdom have made to rationalise our industry, I believe that we should not support the Spanish request to the Council.
The Commission's original proposal in article 4(3) on progressive reduction of aid ceilings was not only to review the aid ceiling every year as at present, but to make a commitment to reduce it progressively every 12 months or more often if circumstances warrant it. The United Kingdom argued that changes in the subsidy rate should be market led, based closely on surveys of European and far east prices, as at present. In practical terms, it seems certain that demand will continue to increase in general and that the gap between Community costs and far east prices will diminish during the life of the directive.
The Commission has changed the proposal and redrafted article 4(3), returning to the original wording of the equivalent article in the sixth directive, which did not mention a commitment to progresive reduction. As a quid pro quo, it has insisted that article 4(2) should be strengthened by a joint Commission and Council declaration in the minutes as follows:
The Council and Commission note that the Commission's assessment of the prevailing difference between the cost structure of the most competitive Community yards and the prices charged by their main international competitors will be solely based on an objective technical analysis of the prevailing market situation at the time the ceiling is set. A basic element of this assessment will be a study carried out by an independent consultancy plus other relevant market information.
That has the merit of removing the commitment to progressive reduction, no matter what, while tying aid ceilings to the best possible information on the market and to no other considerations. Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands believe progressive reduction of the aid ceilings to be politically important and will raise that in the Council. Those are the major areas of contention.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the Commission talking about a reduction in the aid ceiling from 20 to 11 per cent.?

Mr. Leigh: Negotiations are in hand. It would be unwise for me to forecast their outcome, but the hon. Gentleman is right that the present aid ceiling is 20 per cent. A shrewd observer would conclude that it is very likely that it will be reduced, but not much below 10 per cent. I shall not give any commitment on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Sillars: That is what the Minister wants.

Mr. Leigh: I am not giving any commitment on behalf of the Government, but negotiations are being conducted. As we have restructured our industry, it is in our interests that subsidies should be phased out in an orderly fashion. If they remain high, that can only benefit our competitors in southern European yards. The shipbuilding subsidy—the shipbuilders intervention fund, or SIF—will riot be phased out entirely; that would take some years. I should be surprised if the subsidy remained as high as 20 per cent., but should be equally surprised if it were cut much below 10 per cent. That is a matter for negotiation.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom's representative sought to have it reduced below 10 per cent.?

Mr. Leigh: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets that information from. He said that the United Kingdom's representative sought to have it reduced below 10 per cent. That is not my understanding of our negotiating position.

Ms. Joyce Quin: Surely the Minister owes it to the House to explain clearly the Government's position on the aid ceiling. What figure do they favour?

Mr. Leigh: It would do our negotiating position in Brussels no good if I were to tell the House exactly what we had proposed. I have been more than open with the House. I have explained that the present subsidy is 20 per cent. and have given a prognosis that it will undoubtedly be reduced. I do not know what it will be reduced to, because different countries have presented different proposals. It would be unwise and unhelpful if I were to suggest the outcome of the negotiations, because they are still proceeding. No doubt we shall find out what will happen on 26 November, which is not far away.
I have dealt with the major matters of contention. The remaining changes are all improvements to the sixth directive. The United Kingdom, supported by the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, has questioned the coverage of the directive. We believe that ship conversions should not be eligible for subsidy. The United Kingdom does not at present provide subsidies for conversion and our shipbuilders have lost business to those European yards that do. A compromise has been suggested which would link support for conversion work to the level given for building ships. There is, of course, a higher level given for large ships, as the House will know. Other member states have agreed to the compromise so, reluctantly, we have had to follow, although we should have preferred abolition.
The German concern on the aid that they give to shipowners to purchase ships is that some of that aid is spent in foreign yards. They see it as unfair that all aid given via shipowners should be counted within the production aid ceiling. The United Kingdom gives all its contract-related production aid as defined in the directive directly to shipbuilders. This is the SIF, to which I referred and about which all hon. Members will, no doubt. have heard. It is an entirely transparent scheme.
Our other scheme, the home shipbuilders credit guarantee scheme, operates within the credit guidelines of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and outside the directive. We therefore have

not offered support to the Germans in their efforts to make an allowance for this wastage of aid and nor have any other states.
To prevent investment aid—either regional aid or, in our case, closure aid—from being used to enlarge capacity before markets have returned to normal, the following amendment in article 6 is likely to be agreed:
Investment aid, whether specific or non-specific, may not be granted for the creation of a new shipyard or for investment in an existing yard unless it is linked to a restructuring plan which does not increase the shipbuilding capacity of that yard or unless it is linked directly to a corresponding reduction in capacity elsewhere in the same member state within the same period.
This should not cause the United Kingdom any problems, because, while we have given closure aid, we have an iron rule that no selective assistance should be given to expand shipbuilding facilities in the present circumstances. The new article 6(1) has greater clarity than its predecessor in the sixth directive and lays down conditions under which investment aid could be given.
The United Kingdom does, however, have some concern about closure aid, and I know that this will be of interest to certain hon. Members. We have complained about the proposal in article 7, which would require a member state to obtain the Commission's prior approval to reopen any yard for which closure aid has been given. The yard would have to remain completely closed for the first five years and could reopen only with Commission approval at any time after that. We have made it clear that our concern focused on legal and practical difficulties. The Commission has accepted our argument that keeping a yard closed for ever posed difficulties in land law, as it is difficult to place a binding covenant on a freehold and most purchasers prefer to purchase a freehold. The Commission has therefore accepted an amendment to the original proposed article as follows:
If, after a period of five years, but before the 10th anniversary of closure, a member state wishes nevertheless to reopen a closed shipbuilding or ship repair facility, it must obtain the Commission's prior approval.
Other member states have acquiesced to that amendment, but would prefer closure to be permanent and irreversible without time limit.
We have separately questioned the Commission on whether it would seek to apply this article retrospectively on closures made under the sixth directive. This would take in closure of North East Shipbuilders' yard at Sunderland, which is of particular interest to hon. Members. The Commission has argued in the Council working group that the new article 7 is more flexible than
the equivalent article in the sixth directive, which stated that closure after closure aid assistance must be "genuine and irreversible". The Council minutes for the sixth directive, which are not legally binding, said:
genuine and irreversible closure
should last for
at least five years.
There was no support among other member states for any notion that the new article would be retrospective even if it applied to closures made under the sixth directive, as the Commission already insists on closure for at least five years and will not even countenance preparations made for reopening for shipbuilding after that time. In practice, if the amended article 7 is carried, the Commission is likely to treat closures under both the sixth and seventh directive as "genuine and irreversible", to be inflexible up to five


years, to show flexibility after five years and to lose interest after 10 years. It is a complex issue, but if one considers it in those terms, one can make sense of it.

Mr. Bob Clay: Having been through that complex matter, will the Minister accept that, on the interpretation he has just given the House, it boils down to the fact that the seventh directive will be more draconian on closures than the sixth directive was? If the sixth directive had remained as it was and if the North East Shipbuilders yards were still there, they could have reopened after five years, whereas now they will need the Commission's approval. That part of the directive is retrospective. Is the Minister asking the House to approve such retrospective legislation after all that the Government have said over the years about it?

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman asked whether the seventh directive is more draconian than the sixth directive. He cannot sustain that point, because the sixth directive says:
closure after closure aid must be genuine and irreversible".
Nothing could be clearer. At least we are now moving towards a practical compromise. Closure aid is given for the obvious reason of trying to cut down general shipbuilding capacity. We are moving towards a generally understood position, with which I hope that we can all live. I know that the hon. Gentleman, whose diligence and skill in these matters we all admire, has his own problems in Sunderland. However, we can live with the proposition that the Commission will not countenance reopening in the first five years. It is prepared to be flexible between five and 10 years, and after 10 years it will lose interest. That seems to be a reasonably sensible middle way with which all countries are prepared to live.

Mr. Jim Cousins: The Minister will realise that one of the tests of irreversibility advanced in the sixth and seventh directives is that no activity predicated on the basis of a return to shipbuilding within that period should be allowed. Can the Minister assure the House that construction work for the oil rig industry, which is a boom industry at present and which it is in the national interest to promote, will not be caught on the ground that such activity predicates a return to shipbuilding?

Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to take some advice on that point? It is only fair that I should do so and I will come back to that point in my closing remarks. I should like to give as accurate an answer as possible.
The time limit of 10 years which we have obtained is the best deal that we are likely to achieve and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.
The final area of interest in the seventh directive concerns the absorption of East German shipyards into the Community. Some weeks ago, the Commission published a proposed amendment to the directive giving special treatment to East German yards, similar to that accorded to Spain and to Portugal in the sixth directive. Officials on the Council working group were informed on 31 October 1990 by Commission officials that the amendment had been withdrawn because of the substantial orders available in the yards concerned.

German officials have subsequently renewed the quest for a derogation as many of the orders were taken in unconvertible roubles and will have to be renegotiated. Although the Council working group accepts that the renegotiation of the contract may cause difficulties for the former East German shipyards, it does not believe that enough is yet known of the extent of the problem to justify the provision of special treatment.
Adoption of the seventh directive on aid to shipbuilding will conclude a series of working group discussions which have been more protracted than expected given the success of the sixth directive. Hon. Members will have questions, but I have no hesitation in commending the seventh directive to the House.

Ms. Joyce Quin: I am glad at least that the debate is taking place in advance of the forthcoming discussions in the Council of Ministers, although I strongly regret that the time available to us for a discussion of a complex and important issue is so limited.
I welcome the new Minister to his new appointment and wish him well. It has to be said, however, that there has been a kaleidoscope of 12 Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry over the past 11 years. We have seen also a kaleidoscope of changing Ministers with responsibility for shipbuilding. Few have managed to get their feet under the table before being moved on. I do not know whether to wish the current Minister a longer tenure in office than his predecessors. Given the Government's overall problems, it seems rather unlikely that he will have that experience. The fact that there have been so many Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and so many Ministers with responsibility for shipbuilding shows that the Government have not taken the shipbuilding industry seriously enough, nor industry generally, over recent years.
The documents that we are considering cover the proposed seventh directive on aid to the shipbuilding industry and the most recent of the periodic reports that are prepared by the Community on the shipbuilding industry as a whole. It is clear that at long last there is an upturn in the industry, and we welcome that. It has been a long time coming and there are some uncertainties, not least the situation in the Gulf. On the whole, most people think that it is a sustainable upturn. The DTI's brief on the subject expresses the view that at least the upturn should continue until the middle of the decade.
There will be a renewal of the world's aging fleet. The proportion of ships in that fleet that are more than 10 years old has increased to more than 63 per cent. With tankers, the figure rises to a dramatic 73 per cent. The Opposition are worried that the prospects for Britain's share in the market—where there is the upturn I referred to—do not look good. We have already lost more shipbuilding jobs than any other comparable EEC country, and the reduction in our share of world output has been dramatic. It decreased to about 1·5 per cent. in 1988, and it is still declining.
I was surprised to hear the Minister say that the sixth directive had successfully defended the industry. It is arguable, although I should question that personally, that it has defended the position of EEC shipbuilding on the world market, but it has not defended the place of British shipbuilding within the European Community or within the world as a whole. We have noticed the tendency of


Conservative Members to think that shipbuilding is a declining industry and that that decline is inevitable. The attitude seems to be, "It is an old industry—let it go " That hardly squares with the fact that the world's No. 1 shipbuilder, which accounts for about 50 per cent. of world output, is Japan. Japan is hardly a backward or declining industrial nation.
There are many orders at present, but with the British capacity being so small it is unlikely that we shall be building a significant proportion of the ships that are on order. For example, only in the past few days orders have been announced by Malaysia and Abu Dhabi for liquefied natural gas carriers. The yards that seem likely to benefit are those either in Japan or possibly, in the European Community, in France. No British yards seem in line for the orders.
Events in the British shipbuilding industry have been especially tragic over the past two years. We have seen the closure of the Sunderland shipyards. The Southwick yard was one of the most modern of shipyards. Cammell Laird is experiencing difficulties on Merseyside. As a result of the downturn in warship building, it seems that the yard will have to look for merchant orders. Unfortunately, as has been made clear tonight by the Government, as on other occasions, it will have to seek those orders on an uneven playing field. Cammell Laird will not have access to the intervention fund from which competitor yards in Europe will benefit. That is a shame and something on which the Government should negotiate.
Discussions on European directives take a long time to complete and once they have been agreed they tend to be difficult to change. That certainly applied to the passage of the sixth directive. The Sunderland yards and the Cammell Laird yard have been the losers because it has been difficult to change the rules which were agreed at the time of the recession in shipbuilding and which are not suitable for the present upturn in the industry.
The Government have negotiated strongly with the Commission about the continuation of the Sunderland yards and about intervention funds for Cammell Laird and other yards. It is ironic that under the present. Prime Minister the Government claim to be talking tough in Europe, but in reality they have been prepared to accept every minor and major interpretation of the shipbuilding rules by the Commission that has disadvantaged Britain. The Government have not challenged any of those rules.
The Government should be more open with the House and give us an assurance that secret agreements will not govern the conclusion of this directive, as was the case with the sixth shipbuilding directive. I am aware of what happened then as I was the shipbuilding spokesperson in the European Parliament when the sixth directive was agreed. We were amazed and dismayed to discover that, once the directive had been agreed, it was governed by an unpublished agreement of the Council of Ministers that had not been scrutinised by national Parliaments or by the European Parliament. That was deplorable and it should not be repeated.
I am sorry that the Minister could not be more frank about the level of aid that the Government are supporting in Brussels. While we do not want to undermine the negotiations, we should at least like to be assured that the Government are standing up for the British shipbuilding industry. That does not seem to be the case on the evidence presented to us tonight.

Mr. Chris Mullin: The arrangements in relation to Sunderland appear to have been so secret that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the time did not know about them. He was soliciting publicly for bids for the yards that would not require subsidy and when such a bid was forthcoming it had to be vetoed on the ground that some arrangement, of which he was not aware at the time, had been agreed by officials at his Department that forbade the bid going ahead.

Ms. Quin: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. The Government did not seem to understand what they had agreed with the European Commission in December 1988. The murky details surrounding the Sunderland closures have never been made public. Because the Government did not understand, would-be purchasers of the Sunderland yards who in some cases wanted to operate the yards without subsidy were misled for a considerable period. Their disappointment was acute when at the end of the day they were told that they could not carry out shipbuilding on the Wear. The disappointment was also acute in Sunderland and that feeling persists today.
The system of determining aid ceilings in the new directive is virtually unchanged from the system in the sixth directive. We shall look closely at the negotiating position that the Government adopt next week for the aid ceiling. If we feel that the Government are arguing for a lower ceiling than we approve of, we shall not hesitate to make the matter public as loudly as we can and we shall inform the industry and the people who work in it of the Government's attitude in those negotiations.

Mr. Leigh: What ceiling would the hon. Lady desire?

Ms. Quin: I would desire a ceiling that was higher than the 11 per cent. for which the Government appear to be calling. There have been rumours that the Government wanted an even lower ceiling. Eleven per cent. represents a halving of the present ceiling. That reduction is far too drastic given the still precarious position in shipbuilding.
We are concerned also—this point has been made in briefings to hon. Members by the Ship Builders and Ship Repairers Association—because the costs operating in one yard, a Danish yard, have been the key element in the Commission's proposals governing aid ceilings. The Ship Builders and Ship Repairers Association feels that that has led to a distortion in the figure that has been proposed, in particular because the yard in question is owned by Denmark's largest shipowner and the yard was built almost exclusively for its owner. Although Denmark is opposed to shipbuilding subsidies, it has one of Europe's most generous tax systems for investment in ships. I should like the Minister to respond to that specific point because it is of considerable concern not only to Opposition Members but to the shipbuilding industry throughout the United Kingdom.
It is said that all aid will be included in the directive. We certainly approve of transparency of aid, but of course there are some exceptions, including, in particular, aid given for investment and for research and development. What use do the Government intend to make of aid for research and development, and do they intend to promote research and development within our shipbuilding industry?
There are also exceptions for development aid. The documents accompanying the directive say that one state in the European Community has overused that exception


to its benefit. Perhaps the Minister can tell us which member state is referred to in that category and whether we have attempted to use development aid as one way of getting orders for our shipyards.
The Minister referred to the definition of a closure. The economic committee of the European Parliament has recommended that the period be reduced to three years and that that matter will be debated by the European Parliament. Why, in particular given the situation at the Sunderland yards and at Cammell Laird, are the Government not in favour of, perhaps, a three-year limit rather than the formula that the Minister gave, which represents little change from the terms of the sixth directive?
On Sunderland, is not it tragic that the equipment there has been dismantled in recent days and has made the site much more difficult for a resumption of shipbuilding, despite the fine and proud traditions in Sunderland and along the River Wear? I am sure that my hon. Friends will refer to that matter if the opportunity arises.
The principle of degressivity is referred to in the directive. Although people may say that it is a good idea to try to reduce the amount of aid that is being given, I should like to be assured by the Minister that the principle of degressivity will not override the reality of the situation in world shipbuilding. If it is clear that more aid needs to be given in European yards, the principle of degressivity should not override the need to give aid if the circumstances arise.
On the definition of ships under the directive, the Minister did not mention whether the Government had been arguing for the ships that Aluminium Shipbuilders want to build to be excluded from the directive. It seems astonishing that the previous Minister with responsibility for shipbuilding did not, in front of the European Commission, defend the need or the possibility for Aluminium Shipbuilders to build ships at Sunderland. The Government seem to have failed to take up the issue with the European Commission, and I should like to know whether the present Minister is to adopt a change of policy on that matter.
The Minister mentioned the special regime that will be offered to East German shipyards. The accession of East Germany into the Community will make a huge difference because, on its own, East Germany is the No. 2 shipbuilder in the European Community, and West Germany is the No. 1 shipbuilder, and combined they will be dominant in the Community shipbuilding industry. Although I can understand that the European Commission may worry about the ensuing capacity for the European Community as a whole, the British Government should be concerned at the huge contraction that has taken place in British shipbuilding and should be concerned to ensure that we do not suffer any further disadvantage.
It is important also to address the lack of monitoring of the rules. That has certainly been a problem under the sixth directive, and we want to make sure that action is taken under the seventh directive so that countries respect the rules. It is a great pity that respect for the rules has been so lax up to now because that has put our shipbuilding industry at a considerable disadvantage.
I refer to a related issue, which does not arise under the directive, but which is being considered in Brussels—the

aid that is available to shipbuilding areas under the RENAVAL programme. The Government have been slow to act over RENAVAL and made a strange choice of areas to benefit from it at the beginning. The traditional shipbuilding areas, such as Strathclyde, Tyne and Wear and Merseyside, were given RENAVAL programmes much later. That is unacceptable because the money could have been put to good use earlier in those areas.
What is the Government's attitude towards the accompanying social measures, which, so far, have been blocked in the Council of Ministers? Are the Government in favour of reaching an agreement on the accompanying social measures that have been envisaged by the European Commission?
Shipbuilding in Britain has lived through tragic times in the past 11 years. Although some closures were inevitable, the scale of the decline was not. There are murky episodes, such as the agreement that closed the Sunderland shipyard.
I remind the Minister that shipbuilding is an industry with a future, and perhaps he should be reminded of a few simple facts. The majority of our trade is seaborne and will continue to be so—and the same is true of most of world trade. Both for reasons of obsolescence and because of poor environmental standards, many older vessels are likely to be scrapped or to be laid up in the next few years. I also remind the Minister of the clear links between the traditional industries, such as shipbuilding, and the products of the new technologies. These days, even the simplest fishing vessel is likely to have a range of technological gadgetry on board, Unfortunately, however, it is likely that at present neither the ships nor the technology on board will be British-built.
The Government need to work actively with the industry to win orders and require the determination to do so. We should look, for example, at the way in which the Japanese Government have worked with the Japanese industry on the promotion of collaborative research and development across that country's shipbuilding industry.
I was interested to read in Lloyd's List a few days ago about the work of the European shipyards in Spain, France, Germany and Italy, which are co-operating to develop anti-pollution and environmentally friendlier vessels. Again, it is a great pity that no British yard seems to be involved in the venture. A Labour Government would wish to work with the industry to promote research and development, to win new orders, and to promote a view of what the industry in Britain should be trying to achieve in future in terms of a market share both in the European Community and in the wider world.
In conclusion, the Government have sold the industry short. As a result, not only our shipbuilding industry but our general industrial future has been damaged. I urge the Minister to take a more positive view. From what we have heard tonight, that is unlikely to happen. Once again, it is the Labour party that is the party committed to industrial revival and to our future industrial prosperity.

Mr. Barry Field: I am prompted to speak on the directive, not because the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be making an application for a grant following this evening's result or to repair the damage that has been done to the ship of state by the recent mutiny among the crew, but because this is a much more serious


issue. The shipbuilding industry in my constituency has recently suffered a setback as one island shipyard announced the redundancy of 20 workers at Souters the other day.
Despite that gloomy news, the shipbuilding intervention fund has been of exceptional assistance in bringing innovation and new manufacturing methods to our island shipyards. By judicious use of the grant, FBM Marine has designed and built a new high-speed ferry for service between Naples and Capri and has produced a revolutionary design for a catamaran to serve Madeira. That order was won against fierce competiton from Australia and Norway.
Perhaps the jewel in the crown is the order for the high-speed catamarans for Red Funnel to run between Cowes and Southampton. Associated British Ports—a privatisation success in itself—which is now the owner of Red Funnel, has placed the order with an island shipyard, FBM Marine. The order will replace the Italian manufactured hydrofoils. My hon. Friend the Minister may imagine my joy at an island community using island craftsmen to produce the fine new vessels, which will not only serve the people of the Isle of Wight but will be used as a shop window for all those who travel across the Solent to place valuable orders with us.
My hon. Friend's predecessor declared himself a friend of the grant. I am concerned that, having personally assisted island shipyards to obtain fresh funds totalling many hundreds of thousands of pounds, from the Department of Trade and Industry on no fewer than four occasions, all that may now be threatened. I pay tribute to the civil servants in my hon. Friend's Department, who have always dealt with me most efficiently and provided a very prompt service when I have had a tight deadline for obtaining an intervention fund for the island shipyards.
The Shipbuilders and Ship Repairers Association, to which the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) referred, and which represents a large proportion of the industry, wants certain points to be addressed. I ask my hon. Friend to comment on them when he replies to the debate. The report by Tecnecon to DGIV is dominated by one Danish yard. The Danes want to phase out subsidies as they aid the ship owner, not the builder. The abolition of shipbuilding subsidies will make no difference to Danish
yards because they do not receive them now. However, the tax system for a Danish owner building a ship in a Danish yard produces the equivalent of a 30 per cent. subsidy on the price of the ship.
The association would like article 4(2) to be amended so that it reads, "competitive Community yards". For 1991, the responsible Commission directorate, DGIV, is proposing a ceiling of 11 per cent., with 9 per cent. for small ships. That is based on a study by United Kingdom consultants, Tecnecon, based on eight ship types. One Danish yard supplied data on five of the eight ship types. Each time its cost was lowest on one ship type by as much as one third, against two highly efficient German yards. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not need me to convince him that that is a serious position because it is hardly likely that German yards would be considered inefficient. That is the weight behind the proposed amendment, which would make the system more widely spread.
The association wants the resumption of degressivity qualified by a presumption that it should be the market that determines the level of aid. The wording of the seventh directive appears to prevent denationalised yards from

applying for grant, which could be prejudicial. Article 4(3) should be amended to prevent those yards with a full order book from being penalised by the three-year rule. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that the more successful yards will need a longer time before they can begin building, so it would be wrong if they lost grant because of that.
I know that my hon. Friend has a reputation for being something of an interventionist. Indeed, I believe that it is an open secret that, before gaining his exalted position, he regularly intervened in the affairs of the Labour party, and today he may even have intervened in Room 12 on behalf of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am sure that he would like some reassurance from me about the self-help on the island. Through the excellent offices of the chief executive of the British Marine Industries Federation, Paul Wagstaff, the Isle of Wight has received a grant from the BMIF to study the shipyards and the related industries on the island, in advance of our training and enterprise council launch, to identify the future strengths and highlight the weaknesses of the island's marine industries. It is the only study of its kind in the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend already enjoys a reputation as one of the statesmen of the House. I am sure that we can rely on his considerable multilingual skills as well as his well-known Anglo-Saxon wit to ensure that the interests of British shipyards and ship repairing are properly defended in the EC and that the directive is suitably amended.

Mr. Bob Clay: I do not want to be sectarian, but the Government's attitude to what is happening to German shipbuilding is extraordinary.
The seventh directive will come into effect on 1 January, but for the past few months no restraint has been imposed on the activities between the former East and West German shipyards. West German shipbuilders have been buying into East Germany and work has been subcontracted backwards and forwards. It is clear that the West German Government tore up the existing sixth directive several months ago. Now they have the audacity to suggest that Germany should be allowed to derogate from the new directive and that all sorts of special arrangements should be made. It is now reported that the West German shipbuilding industry wants to put DM6 billion of restructuring money into the East German yards. Therefore, the country that already had the largest capacity by far in the Community now has more than doubled that capacity by adding a whole range of quite good but cheap labour shipyards to its capacity. The British Government have made no complaint and just sat there. I should not object so much to that if it were not for the fact that, in the meantime, they allowed Sir Leon Brittan and the Commission to nit-pick in a most ludicrous fashion about the reopening of British yards. I should have thought that the Government had learnt their lesson by now.
The Minister's comments on the background to the directive contradict its contents. He spoke about how the market is picking up and how prices are improving, but all his predecessors told us that the market was hopeless. The Opposition argued that the industry should be supported because there would be an upturn in the market, but the Government refused to accept that. They let good British


yards close, but now the upturn has arrived, they allow the Commission to keep those yards closed. That is a shameful record.
The nit-picking about Sunderland—I make no apology for mentioning it—is appalling. For the first time on record the Minister mentioned the problem that the Government face, about how one can keep yards closed for ever as well as the problems connected with the freehold of such yards. We are now learning what happens when someone buys a shipyard to use for some other purpose because it is not allowed to reopen as a shipyard. There are many problems arising from covenants and lease conditions. That buyer would face even more difficulties should he wish to resell the yard to another owner. That buyer would then have to impose all the covenants and legal restrictions imposed upon him by the Department of Trade and Industry on that next buyer. Even after a few days in office, the Minister is aware of the nightmare that now faces the Government and the Commission as a result.
It is a fundamental irony that the sixth directive, which was intended to reduce subsidy and to protect the best of the European shipbuilding industry, whether we agreed with it or not, is now operating to prevent the reopening or continued existence of the most modern merchant yards in Europe at Sunderland. Under the Government's privatisation proposals people were prepared to buy those yards at a commercial price and operate them without any subsidy. However, a directive that was designed to reduce subsidy has been used to prevent modern shipyards in Britain operating without subsidy. That turns the logic of the directive on its head. That has happened not only in Sunderland but, for example, at La Ciotat in France, where a Swedish-American company said, in effect, "We shall take the yard over, pay for it and build tankers without subsidy," only to be told that it could not do so because the Commission obliged the French Government to oppose it.
That happened because the Commission became so obsessed with recession mentality—with cutting and restricting capacity—that when the upturn in the market came and European yards could start taking advantage of the situation, expanding the industry a little, the Commission's actions effectively prevented any forward movement occurring.
In Sunderland we have ended up in a truly extraordinary situation. I do not have time to relate the nonsense of what has happened. It would be a farce if it were not so tragic. People say, "We shall move the equipment out of yards that have been closed and put it in another site on the river and try to build ships there." Sir Leon Brittan replies, "No, you cannot do that." We have never been told whether only the NESL—North Eastern Shipbuilders Ltd.—yards were closed or whether there is a bar on shipbuilding along the whole of the River Wear. If the latter, may we be told why, and, if so, by what law?
One bureaucratic nonsense leads to another. It seems clear that Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry did not even understand what the people in Brussels were telling them, and vice versa. Consider the farcical situation involving the small, successful and unique British company, Aluminium Shipbuilders Ltd., the only European licence holders for the most successful

aluminium hulled, jet foil designed catamaran in the world. The company needs to move from its present premises in the south of England, because they are too small, and says that there is only one suitable place in Britain where it can go, and that is Sunderland, where there is available the only covered berth large enough for its activities. We are speaking of only a tiny proportion of the total NESL yards, but even that move is not allowed.
I cannot believe that, when the sixth directive was drafted, the bureaucrats who drafted it and Ministers who agreed to it thought that it would cover a different type of vessel, including the type of catamaran to which I referred. Such vessels were not invented when that directive was drafted. But because the document refers, in its bureaucratic language, to metal hulled, ocean-going vessels, Aluminium Shipbuilders Ltd. cannot, even without subsidy, relocate in an empty yard in Sunderland, where 400 high-tech jobs would be created. Instead, the firm is having to consider going outside the United Kingdom. What a disgraceful state of affairs.
The Government have yet to explain the real nature of the secret agreement that has led to the most modern shipyards in Europe being dismantled. There may be 20 small yards in Britain capable of building ships of up to 1,000 tonnes, but that does not mean that one of them can build a ship of 10,000 tonnes.
Even if the Government came to their senses and allowed intervention funds for Cammell Laird and Swan Hunter, the result would still be that only Cammell Laird, Swan Hunter, Govan and Harland and Wolff would be capable of building ships in Britain of over 10,000 tonnes. What an extraordinary state of affairs. With the market in its present state, British ship owners—who should have been more loyal in the past to our yards—as they come to their senses and as prices begin to rise, will be obliged to order abroad because there will not be the capacity in Britain to handle the orders. It is shameful and, even at this stage, the Government should come to their senses.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I intend to make only the briefest of contributions so that I do not keep anyone else from making their comments on the seventh directive. It is easy for me to do that because, by and large, the comments made by the hon. Members for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) are ones with which I can easily concur. That allows me to concentrate solely on that part of the directive relating most closely to an issue involving Harland and Wolff which one might expect me, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East, to have as my angle of vision—what the Minister called the levels.
There may be some misapprehension about that because we are talking about mandatory limits. The levels can be anything under those limits. I was shocked at the Minister's attitude, because I know that the Commission's present reference involves 11 per cent., whereas the officials from the Department of Trade and Industry went into negotiations, trying to bring down the level to less than 10 per cent. The Minister chided the hon. Member for Gateshead, East by saying that he cannot give away any figures because that might prejudice negotiations. Is he trying to negotiate the percentage up or down? I suspect that he is trying to negotiate it down. If he does that, it will have a catastrophic effect on shipbuilding in Belfast.
The Government, through the House, pushed the issue of the privatisation of Harland and Wolff. I was not enthusiastic about it, as the Minister will see if he looks at the debates. But his colleagues pushed the legislation through the House and set up a privatised yard in Belfast. It seems the strangest of logic to attempt to damage the incubation period of that new yard by making it more difficult for it to make a profit.
The Minister will be well aware that a percentage point of subsidy can make a world of difference in terms of whether an order costs a yard money or it will clean its nose on it. The Minister should be in there, helping. I thought that the Tory attitude was that they should battle for Britain. That attitude has not been displayed during the Minister's comments in this debate. I want the Minister to say that he will enter negotiations on the basis of attempting to increase the percentage figure. He should remember that, if he does increase it, it will not bind him to anything, because he can later agree a smaller subsidy.
Most of the arrangements have worked to the advantage of the Danes who, through their system, are able to give a tax advantage of about 30 per cent. subsidy to their shipowners and shipbuilders. The Minister is doing down British shipbuilding and giving the Danes the advantage by riot giving a proper and decent subsidy to the European yards. Many of the shipyards in the United Kingdom accept that the subsidy will go, indeed, some of them argue that it should go. But they want it to go in an orderly fashion. No one could contend that cutting it from its present level of 20 per cent. to about 10 or 11 per cent. is orderly.
We are looking to the Minister to fight for Britain on this issue, increase the level of subsidy and ensure that he does not strangle at birth the privatised Harland and Wolff company.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Much has changed since we debated the sixth directive in 1986 and we have moved out of the recession in shipbuilding to a period of significant improvement. It is not clear whether that improvement will be sustained. However, it seems that European policy, originally directed towards reducing capacity, is in danger of becoming a policy against competition and the existence of a free and competitive industry. The Government must address that issue in their negotiations.
Nowhere is that fact more apparent than in the Sunderland yards, and the whole sorry story of Sunderland—a tale full of misleading information, misunderstanding, misdirection and, in the case of Sir Leon Brittan, even self-misdirection. It seemed that Sir Leon was suggesting not only that there was a limitation on the ability of the yards to reopen, but that even when the period came in which permission could be sought for the yards to reopen he was not ready to consider it. That was certainly the impression that he eventually managed to convey to Ministers, who at first failed to understand what he was on about.
As a result of all this, yards that could have been competitive have been murdered by policies which were misapplied and, it is now clear, misunderstood at several stages by some of the people who were supposed to be applying them. Some of that sorry tale was unveiled by the

hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and we in the north-east know how many more such sorry tales there are and what a miserable saga it is.
Even at this late stage the Government should unravel the mess that has surrounded the Sunderland yards, and ensure that the right of trades people of Sunderland to exercise their skills in a competitive shipbuilding market is not permanently removed. Many hon. Members, when the Sunderland yards were first threatened, said that these were the very yards that could be competitive in the future if they could only get through the following 12 or 18 months. What has happened since then has vindicated what they said.
Secondly, we need a genuinely level playing field across Europe, across the world shipbuilding industry and within the United Kingdom. We do not have one now. Swan Hunter faces, and has succeeded in the face of, unequal competition, because it, like Cammel Laird, has been excluded from the benefits of the intervention fund. There is no level playing field because a number of companies, due to an accident of United Kingdom history, are excluded from those benefits.
As the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) pointed out, the situation has changed dramatically. The bringing into the ambit of this policy of shipyards employing 44,000 people in East Germany makes such a dramatic difference that the Community cannot stand on the arguments that originally led to the creation of the limits. The Government, therefore, have a perfect basis for renegotiation of the provisions so that there is a genuine level playing field and so that intervention fund assistance is available. Swan Hunter has done remarkably well in spite of the absence of that assistance and has been a successful candidate for a management buy-out.
I pay tribute to what has been done in that yard and I look forward to much success for it in future, but the essence of the Government's stance must surely be the securing of equal competitive terms for firms throughout the United Kingdom, across the Community and ultimately throughout the world. It does not make sense for the market in shipbuilding to be hopelessly distorted by massive subsidies. We should have fair competition, and policies should be directed towards securing it.

Mr. Frank Field: What an irony——

Mr. Ken Maginnis: An irony indeed!

Mr. Field: We both have shipyards in our constituencies and the fewer interventions there are, the quicker hon. Members will be able to make their speeches. Northern Ireland Members are over-represented in this House, and an hon. Member from Merseyside has the Floor.
As I was saying, what an irony it is that for weeks we have witnessed Conservative Members destroying a Prime Minister who takes what I believe is a correct stance on Europe. Within the Community, each country must defend its national interests. Tonight we debate a document which, if passed, will lock our shipyards into further decline. We should not pass it unless the Minister explains what he means about the exceptional circumstances of British yards, and then writes that into the order.
Exceptional circumstances derive partly from the higher proportion of national income that we used to give


to defence. It is now being pushed down towards the European average. Part of that defence budget was spent on naval shipbuilding. The labour force in the naval shipyards will soon be reduced from more than 22,000 to about 8,000. If the Government take no action, that will mean massive redundancies on the Clyde, in Tyneside, in Barrow and in Merseyside, and a lack of job opportunities in Northern Ireland.
If the readjustment to a normal defence programme does not constitute exceptional circumstances, I would like to know what does. As we were so dependent on naval orders when we were at the bottom of the recession, many of the yards moved over to naval work; it was all the work that there was. The expectation was that after the recession they would be able to move back to merchant shipping work. Shipyards that can take merchant work are beginning to fill up. Yards that could benefit from merchant work are locked into naval work, unless the Government defend British interests.
Unless the Minister is prepared to say that there are exceptional circumstances in this country, the House ought not to agree to the directive without voting upon it. It will result in many workers in many shipyards going down the road towards unemployment.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: For those of us who are concerned for the future of this industry and who take albeit a passing interest in marine affairs, a crucial issue is the annual review by the competition policy directorate of the Commission when the market-driven basis for fixing the level of intervention funding for new ships is decided. This attempt to quantify the lowest far east price compared with the lowest European production cost has now been carried out and tabled by the consultants.
Those directly involved have suggested to me that there are, inevitably, weaknesses and inconsistencies within the current study. This year's study was, for example, carried out prior to the Gulf crisis which has had a negative impact on shipping freight rates. This, in turn, has caused a fall in the value of ships, which could ultimately affect new-build prices. I understand that the Commission will, after consulting member states, be bringing its recommendation on the level of aid for 1991 to the Council of Ministers towards the end of this month.
Having taken account of the current unsettled state of shipping and the new-build market, it appears that, apart from Denmark, and perhaps Holland, there is strong support in Europe for the idea of maintaining the current level of 20 per cent. aid for a further six months at least. Depending on the Gulf crisis, it should then be possible to carry out a further review, with the objective of reducing subsidy in a market which, I hope, would have stabilised, but it is my understanding that the United Kingdom Government have not, in line with the majority of member states, taken this sensible and pragmatic view of the situation. Rather, they appear to support a figure closer to, if not below, 10 per cent.
Given the uncertainty of the market and the difficulties in exactly defining the price-cost differential between far

eastern and European yards, would not the Government be wiser to show greater flexibility by agreeing, for another six months, to the present level of intervention funding?
Recovery is still a fragile path for our shipbuilders, but they are striving with determination and are making an effort of which we in this House and the nation should be proud. Their effort must not be undermined. They require consideration, understanding and support, not indifference. That is particularly important in the United Kingdom context. A sensible level of intervention funding for 1991 will be vital to the two most recently privatised major yards, Kvaerner-Govan in Glasgow and Harland and Wolff in Belfast. The House will recall that the latter was bought from the Government just over a year ago through a management-worker buy-out.
Significant progress is now being made, after all the painful reconstruction that Harland and Wolff has undergone over recent years. It would be wrong if it, and Kvaerner-Govan, were not to have the benefit of a committed and involved Government approach. Surely it is obvious that there are both regional and national benefits to be achieved by this nation aligning itself with the majority of European Governments and supporting a realistic level of intervention funding that would help to ensure the winning of new orders for the United Kingdom yards in 1991.

Mr. Jim Sillars: As hon. Members' contributions have demonstrated, this is not a theoretical argument. It is about real people and the impact upon real jobs in our communities. I represent the constituency containing Kvaerner-Govan. It employs a core group of 1,600 men and women and is up to about 2,000 at present. It makes a £35 million plus contribution to the local economy and is engaged in an investment programme of £26 million to improve the yard's productivity. However, if faces severe difficulties in adjusting from our historic past to the present and moving to a future where it can compete at an international level with anyone in the world. Given time, the management and the workers could do so.
The managers and trade unions at Kvaerner dispute—I join them in this—the rosy view of the world shipbuilding industry presented by the Minister and the Commission. On page 8 the Commission's consultative document talks about the situation in the shipbuilding industry. It says that the
recession … may be slowly coming to an end".
It goes on to say:
all aspects of the situation improved … these developments if sustained—may lead to a situation where competition distorting measures can be eliminated.
That comment is laced with qualifications such as "may", "perhaps" and "if".
I have a letter from the managing director of Kvaerner—Govan. It says:
I can also divulge to you that, as a result of the Gulf crisis, several shipowners have postponed discussions with us on new contracts until the market situation is clarified. The customer for our last LPG tanker order recently decided not to make use of an option we had agreed for an additional ship, again because of uncertainties arising out of the Middle East situation.
In other words, until the crisis is over, the market is flat.
What concerns people in Kvaerner and other parts of the country is the role of the Commission under the seventh directive. My information—I am certain that it is


accurate—is that the Commission's proposal is to move from a ceiling level of 20 per cent. to 11 per cent. Disgracefully, in the negotiations the Department of Trade and Industry has been talking about 10 per cent. or lower. The last time there was a precipitate change in the level of aid from 26 per cent. to 20 per cent. Kvaerner lost two ships. Given the current margins, a drop from 20 per cent. to 11 per cent. or 10 per cent. will be a severe handicap in the competitive international world.
I want to lend my weight, for what it is worth, to what was said by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) in respect of the Commission's so-called study, which builds up to the argument about the correct ceiling level for aid. It is a deeply flawed study, particularly when five of the eight ship types are taken from a single yard in Denmark, with a tax regime that is heavily weighted and is probably worth a subsidy of about 30 per cent. The Minister asked the hon. Member for Gateshead, East what level of ceiling aid she wanted. I can tell him what I want. I want 18 per cent. That is a reasonable position for yards such as Kvaerner to be in now. That is what we want from the Department of Trade and Industry in its discussions with the Commission.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to be given an opportunity to try to reply to some of the many interesting points that have been made in the debate. Having spent nearly eight years on the Back Benches, I have always wondered at Ministers who come to the House with prepared texts. I have always thought that it would be far more impressive if they tried to reply to the points raised. I am not sure that I will succeed in doing that, but I will do my best.
The first question to me came from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), who asked whether work on the oil rig industry will be allowed. The answer is yes. The Commission has said that it will not allow operations predicated upon a return to shipbuilding. If a project is viable without necessitating a return to shipbuilding it is okay with the Commission. Work for the oil rig industry is not regarded as shipbuilding in general, so it is not caught by the directive. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) asked many questions, as is her right. I have little time, but I shall try to answer as many as I can. The first concerned that appalling word "degressivity". I made it clear in opening that the directive would not require automatic degressivity. Any change will be based on objective criteria after inquiry by consultants.
The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) asked about the treatment of East German yards. Whether we like it or not, those yards are part of the European Community—[Interruption.] So are our yards, as we fully accept.
I failed to mention earlier that the German Government have been undecided about special treatment under operating aid. They have changed their mind twice already, and at present are asking for special treatment. I make it absolutely clear that we shall oppose it. We expect a major restructuring programme. The Germans have big problems, but we shall scrutinise the Commission's treatment of the problem and the degree and rate of

restructuring of the yards. Far from our being complacent, I hope that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North will accept that we take a robust view.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East asked about research and development training. R and D in shipbuilding and marine engineering is supported by the Government through our "Wealth From the Oceans" collaborative R and D programme. We also support the Eureka programe, Euromar and the Community's Mast and Euram programmes.
The hon. Lady asked about RENAVAL. Approval of RENAVAL programmes for Plymouth, Tyne and Wear and Teesside are expected from the Commission this year. RENAVAL programme applications should be ready to go to the Commission for eligible parts of Fife, Strathclyde and Merseyside. I much regret, however, that in calculating REVANAL grants the Commission is proposing not to take account of job losses suffered in 1990. This week, I asked Commissioner Milian in a letter to reconsider that, but I have not yet received a reply.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East mentioned Aluminium Shipbuilders Ltd. There is no prospect of excluding aluminium ships from the seventh directive. Their inclusion has been checked. The only reason for excluding them would be so that ASL could build at Southwick. The motion to exclude aluminium ships was defeated in the European Parliament following a proposal from a Labour Member of the European Parliament.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made some points. Let me make it clear that officials acting on my behalf did not seek a ceiling of less than 10 per cent. It is true that our aim is to reduce aid ceilings, but that is for negotiation. One does not necessarily begin negotiating at the level one expects to end up with. We must balance the much higher suggestions from the southern member states. I am not in a position to give the House the outcome of those negotiations.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) for the kind remarks that he made about me. He centred his remarks on the Danish yards. The Commission's proposal was not based on prices quoted by one Danish yard. It took account of prices from a range of yards in different member states. Danish ship owners receive tax support, but it is not as high as 30 per cent. Production aid in Denmark is monitored by the Commission and converted to grant equivalent. If hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight, have evidence that the Commission or those who advise me are missing something, we should be pleased to pass it on to the Commission.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) made some points. Sunderland yards were not sold because nobody wanted to buy them. They were given closure aid and could not reopen without returning that aid. Many of the difficult negotiations with the Commission have been necessary because the hon. Member and others have tried to wheedle their way around the clear ground rules, which were laid down from the beginning. Many of us admire the diligent work that the hon. Gentleman has done on behalf of his constituents, but those ground rules were laid down clearly and nothing that we could have done would have overcome them.

Mr. Clay: The hon. Gentleman said that I was trying to wheedle my way around the rules, yet six months after the closure one of his predecessors, the right hon. Member for


Braintree (Mr. Newton), argued in Brussels for a reopening of shipbuilding in Sunderland and was told by the Commissioner that that was not on and that he should have known that over the previous six months. That is a fact.

Mr. Leigh: The fact is that this story of NESL has gone on for a long time. A closure package has been agreed. Some £250 million of taxpayers' money has been sunk into this shipyard. The Government have done everything they can to keep shipbuilding going in Sunderland, but it has not been possible to keep it going. The saga has continued. It has weaved around and around as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North has refused to accept the economic facts of life.
We must accept that, despite our best efforts, shipbuilding will not return to Sunderland. With the help of closure aid, we have achieved a first-rate package for Sunderland. Sunderland needs to look to the future, not always to the past, as the hon. Gentleman does in his obsessions. We have a first-rate package which will ensure that we get a wide range of opportunities and jobs for Sunderland——

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

Question put:-

The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 43.

Division No. 8]
[12.01 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Chapman, Sydney


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Chope, Christopher


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Amos, Alan
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Arbuthnot, James
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, David
Dunn, Bob


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Batiste, Spencer
Favell, Tony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fishburn, John Dudley


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boswell, Tim
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Peter
French, Douglas


Bowis, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bright, Graham
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gregory, Conal


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)





Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Christopher
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Norris, Steve


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Paice, James


Hunter, Andrew
Patnick, Irvine


Irvine, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Jack, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stern, Michael


Knowles, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Lang, Ian
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lightbown, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lord, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Maclean, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Malins, Humfrey
Watts, John


Mans, Keith
Wells, Bowen


Maude, Hon Francis
Widdecombe, Ann


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Miller, Sir Hal



Mills, Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Mr. Tom Sackville and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Neale, Gerrard



Neubert, Michael





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Beggs, Roy
Michael, Alun


Beith, A. J.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Benton, Joseph
Mullin, Chris


Canavan, Dennis
Patchett, Terry


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Clay, Bob
Quin, Ms Joyce


Clelland, David
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Cousins, Jim
Sillars, Jim


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Dixon, Don
Spearing, Nigel


Doran, Frank
Steinberg, Gerry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Trimble, David


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Turner, Dennis


Henderson, Doug
Vaz, Keith


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wallace, James


Ingram, Adam
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


McAvoy, Thomas
Mr. Frank Field and Mr. William Ross.


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)



Maginnis, Ken

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8097/90 relating to aid for shipbuilding; and supports the Government's intention to agree to the adoption of this Directive as a further step towards establishing a soundly based shipbuilding industry in the European Community.

Orders of the Day — Midland Railway (Electrification)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mr. Keith Vaz: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important matter in the House. I understand that this is the first time that the issue has been debated in this place, and I want at the outset to recognise the work of several individuals in Leicestershire who have campaigned on the subject. They are: councillor David Radford of Leicestershire county council; Mr. James Holden, who is an officer of the county council; councillor Henry Dumphy of Leicester city council; and Mr. John Armstrong of the Railway Development Society. I thank the Minister for his attendance and I hope that he, as an east midlands Member, will demonstrate a little regional pride this evening.
The midland main railway line links Sheffield, Nottingham, Derby and Leicester with London. It is electrified as far as Bedford for suburban services. The InterCity services are operated by diesel InterCity 125 trains half hourly to Leicester and hourly north of there. The line serves one of the largest populations of arty line in the country and it is profitable. In 1988 it carried 5·8 million passengers, including myself.
Train services have improved in recent years. Average journey speeds from Leicester to London rose from 55 mph to 72 mph between 1980 and 1988. However, the midland main line has suffered for many years from under-investment. The parallel east coast and west coast main lines are electrified while the midland line is not. The west coast line is to have a further £750 million spent on upgrading. What appeared to be a commitment in the early 1980s to the electrification of the midland main line has been abandoned.
In 1988, concerned at the lack of plans for the line, a consortium was formed comprising the major local authorities that it serves: Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire county councils and Sheffield city council. They commissioned consultants to investigate investment options for the line. The campaign for electrification based on the results of the study was launched in April 1990.
Fast high quality trains are not good in themselves, but they stimulate the economy that they serve by providing a vital communication link. The regions rely on good transport to be competitive. With the single European market and the channel tunnel, distances become greater and good transport even more important. There is strong evidence across Europe of a link between high quality train services and economic prosperity.
Places north and west of London will lie at the edge of the European market, even after the channel tunnel opens. To compete effectively, Leicester and the east midlands need excellent transport links, both passenger and freight. The lack of international rail services will fail to enhance our competiveness when the opportunities will be greatest.
The east midlands will have the largest population in the country with no direct European services. Potentially, one could travel from Leicester, Derby or Nottingham to Paris or Brussels in four hours via the tunnel.
Electric trains are better than diesels at delivering economic development benefits. All new high-speed

services are electric, not diesel. Electric trains can be faster and quieter than diesels, and the mere act of putting up the wires shows a commitment to the service.
The consultants estimated that 3,500 jobs could be created in the region as a direct result of electrification, 800 of those jobs being in Leicestershire. That will come from business relocating there and also expanding. In the longer term, the numbers could be greater than that. Midland electrification is vital to secure the economic prosperity of the region.
Investment of only £5·5 million in the track would bring big journey time savings—up to 20 minutes off the Sheffield to London journey, and 74 miles could be cleared for 110 mph travel and 22 miles could be cleared for 125 mph travel. Investment of just £95 million would complete electrification of the line from Bedford to Sheffield, and a further £48 million would equip it with the most up-to-date electric locomotives and coaches. The total cost of £150 million is nothing compared with what is being spent elsewhere.
As the Minister knows, Government rules demand that British Rail investment makes an 8 per cent. real return on capital. The consultants have demonstrated in their report, a copy of which was handed to the Minister of State at my meeting with him earlier this year, that midland electrification meets that target. Electrification, therefore, is profitable.
Investment in new roads is appraised using cost benefit analysis, which gives financial values to savings in travellers' time and fewer accidents, but inter-city rail investment is judged only in pure financial terms, so the benefits of electrification in strengthening the regional economy and helping to relieve congestion on the parallel M1, probably the busiest road in the country, cannot be counted. A growing body of opinion says that public transport and road building schemes should all be appraised even-handedly using cost-benefit analysis. If they were, midland electrification, with its large cost-benefit return, would have a high priority.
Electrification is also the green option. Trains can make a major contribution to an environmentally responsible transport strategy. Fast, high-quality passenger train services attract many of their customers from car users. If midland main line services are improved, many new passengers will leave their cars at home and travel by train instead. That transfer from road to rail makes a real contribution to reducing environmental problems.

Mr. Harry Barnes: There is heavy road and rail congestion in the east midlands during peak times. In my constituency, where the east midlands line passes through, and in the southern area there is great road congestion. In the northern area, from Dronfield to Sheffield, there is also considerable congestion. if the electrification for which my hon. Friend asks takes place, it will help to deal with road and rail problems. There is considerable congestion at peak hours in Leicester, in my hon. Friend's constituency, which would be overcome to a large extent by the electrification developments that he is stressing.

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is quite right. Our roads are already congested. Instead of proposals for private roads and extra lanes on motorways, let us save some money, lives and injuries and spend more money on our public transport system.
I now refer to the two advantages of using trains as opposed to cars in the environmental strategy. First, trains use less than half the fuel that cars use per person carried, so total consumption of non-renewable resources will be less. Secondly, because trains use less fuel, they also produce smaller amounts of the polluting exhaust gases that threaten the ozone layer.
If the Minister tells us that he is not prepared to make a commitment to this proposal today, and if the line is not electrified, the present trains will be worn out by the turn of the century. They are already 15 years old. Nearly all other high-speed lines are electric, so there is little prospect of replacement diesel trains of the speed and quality necessary to remain competitive. The fear is that a service of declining quality could eventually be truncated at Leicester, with Leicester served by slower, outer-suburban trains, and Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield being served by branch lines off other main lines. We do not want to be left behind as also-rans as we have been in the past. We will not accept everyone else's cast-offs.
The campaign has cross-party support. It has the support of all the region's Members of this Parliament and its Members of the European Parliament, including my own MEP, Imelda Read, who is to raise this matter in the European Parliament. It also has the support of the district and county councils, trade unions, chambers of commerce and other bodies. I have agreed that the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who is in his place, should speak briefly when I have finished. I shall be joining him at a meeting at 9.15 am tomorrow at the Department when we shall continue to raise this issue.
We want some positive comments from the Minister tonight. We want three basic commitments. First, we want a commitment to electrification. Electrification has a long lead time—about seven years. We need a commitment to that investment now so that it can be completed before the turn of the century.
Secondly, we want the Government to insist that British Rail InterCity quickly employs resources to research the case for midland electrification. We estimate that it will take no more than six months to do that because most of the heavy work has already been done by the consultants.
Thirdly, we need the Government's assurance that midland electrification will not be delayed by the limits on British Rail's borrowing powers. Easing those constraints could bring electrification much sooner.
I urge the Minister to set a more positive climate in which British Rail InterCity can work by taking this opportunity to endorse the benefits, both economic and environmental, of having a high-speed, high-quality electrified network of InterCity services and setting a target for its achievement. This is not just a regional matter. The economic and commercial potential for cities such as Leicester and the east midlands region as a whole is so great that the whole country must share this concern. I urge the Minister just to say "Yes".

Mr. David Tredinnick: I thank the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) for making time available to me this evening. I also thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for agreeing to meet a delegation of Leicestershire Members tomorrow to discuss the specific

problem. That demonstrates that the Government care about this issue and that they recognise the concern in the county. I am sure that the fact that we are meeting the Minister tomorrow will be widely welcomed by my constituents.
I have argued long and hard, since my election to the House, for the electrification of the midland main line. I believe that the future prosperity of the midlands, and especially of Leicestershire, including Leicester and Hinckley, depend in the long term on the electrification project. Given the £750 million that has been invested in the west coast main line, the £1 billion on the Al and the multi-million pound investment on the M1 , it seems reasonable for the £160 million proposed investment in the midland main line to proceed. However, if that is not possible, a good second option would be to electrify the line from Bedford to the city of Leicester. A third option which my hon. Friend the Minister might consider, and which has already been referred to, is to encourage British Rail to spend £5 million to cut the rail journey time from Leicester to London by 10 minutes. I understand that that would mean removing the curves at Harborough and Wellingborough.
I ask my hon. Friend one question: does British Rail need permission from the Department of Transport to spend that money? Can he answer that question?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on securing this debate on the electrification of British Rail's midland main line. I am pleased that I am also joined on the Front Bench by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) and for Derby, North (Mr. Knight). That shows the importance that is felt cross-party about this issue. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam is the only Sheffield Member who is present. I am grateful for the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and for the presence of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes)—how could I ever leave him out?
I, too, represent a constituency close to the line, and many of my Derbyshire, West constituents are regular users of the line. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), the Minister for Public Transport, also takes a close interest in the line, and he recently met members of the consortium of midland main line local authorities to discuss its future development.
I assure the House that the importance of the midland main line to the region is well recognised. The spirited and lively campaign organised by local authorities and other interests in the east midlands has also succeeded in highlighting the importance of the line, which only a few years ago many people felt was in danger of becoming a Cinderella line. Today, nothing could be further from the truth. The midland main line is an important line for InterCity, British Rail's profitable passenger section. The line is bringing in money and is highly valued by British Rail.
I remind the House just how good the midland main line service is today. There are currently 68 trains each weekday to and from London. The quickest of those has an average journey time of 75 minutes from London to Leicester. That is an average of 79 mph. The fastest


journey time achieved by British Rail—compared with the average that I have just noted—is 66 minutes. The speed and quality of the service has improved considerably in the past 10 years. BR tells me that in 1980 the London to Leicester time was 106 minutes, half an hour slower than today, and with an average speed of only 56 mph—23 mph slower than today.
Similar improvements have been made in journey times to Derby and to Sheffield. In 1980, the average journey time to Derby was 146 minutes; now it is 108 minutes. The average speed of that journey has increased from 52 mph to 71 mph. I think that it is right to point to that, because it shows the improvements that have been made on that line, which I use on quite a few occasions.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East spoke about attracting more investment into the area. With the greatest respect, I wish that Opposition Members would not keep talking down the region. It gets investment now—for example, Toyota has invested in Derby, and it is the largest single investment ever contemplated in Europe. That has happened without electrification. The region has a great deal going for it because of the successful economic policies of this Government.
Major work has taken place over the past few years at terminals on the route, with improvements to car parking at many stations, including Derby. There have also been improvements to passenger facilities and to travel centres such as the one at Leicester. Schemes completed this year include refurbishment of the passenger lounges at Derby and at Leicester, extension of the car park at Leicester and its improvement by installing closed circuit television, and the building of a new pay-and-display car park at Market Harborough. Total expenditure by British Rail on the infrastructure at Leicester has been over £400,000 this year alone. On the whole of the midland main line, British Rail has spent over £800,000 during this financial year.
Additional improvements are in progress at St. Pancras. At Sheffield—my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam will be interested in this—over £800,000 is being invested in the Sheffield travel centre and the barrier line. Sheffield station, which I visited recently, generally is being upgraded in time for the world student games that will be held in Sheffield next year. There has been continual investment in track renewal to raise the speed of the line. By the May 1990 timetable, more than 40 miles of track south of Leicester had been upgraded to operate at 110 mph resulting in quicker journeys. All of that investment is paying dividends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth asked about British Rail's position on investment. It needs to come to the Department for investment approval only for schemes above £10 million. Schemes under that figure are solely a matter for British Rail, which must decide its priorities. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's question and goes some way towards reassuring him on that point.

Mr. Vaz: Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the position has improved over the past 10 years. Will the Minister turn his mind to the subject of this debate, which is the electrification of the midland main line? Does he believe that electrification will benefit the region economically and commercially?

Mr. McLoughlin: I hope that there is time to answer that as it is the substance of the debate.
The performance of the trains on the route is persistently good. Midland main line trains are exceeding the InterCity punctuality target that 90 per cent. of trains arrive no more than 10 minutes late. The figures for October are typical for achievements this year. They show that on the midland main line 92·7 per cent. of trains were no more than 10 minutes late.
British Rail also introduced a new route control on the midland main line in April this year. It is based at Derby and is responsible for the minute-by-minute control of services. It ensures effective communication between all the various functions on the line, including catering.
There have also been a number of improvements to the timetable. As I said earlier, journey times have decreased significantly in the past 10 years. Other developments have included an additional high-speed 125 train and the introduction of a half-hourly service from Leicester to London in May 1988. In May 1989 there were also journey time reductions.
In October 1989 an hourly service from Nottingham and Sheffield to London was introduced. This year, in May, we saw the introduction of the "Robin Hood" Pullman service from Nottingham and Leicester in the morning to London with a return train in the early evening. British Rail also increased the evening peak capacity from St. Pancras by 33 per cent. between 1987 and May 1990, in response to the growth in traffic.
This is clearly not a line in decline—it is a line with increasing investment, improving services and more passengers. Yet I understand the widespread desire for even further improvement. The campaigners want their line to be electrified, but electrification would not necessarily make the trains run any faster. That could be achieved with current rolling stock were it not for the layout of the line. The midland main line contains a high proportion of curves, junctions and stations which mean that very high speed is impracticable. Although the speeds on the line are good, they could be even better but for speed restrictions of 80 mph through Market Harborough.
Comparatively modest further investment of £5 million in infrastructure could improve the speeds of existing trains on the line, and we are encouraging BR to discuss that option with local authorities and others in the region. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth, BR could take such decisions without necessarily referring to the Government.
Nevertheless, I appreciate that there may be a feeling that, with the completion next year of the electrification of the east coast main line, the people on the midland main line may feel that they are in danger of being left behind. That electrification, the largest electrification project ever and the largest railway project for more than a quarter of a century, will reduce journey times from London to Edinburgh by 35 minutes. New class 91 locomotives and mark-four rolling stock will carry passengers in air-conditioned comfort providing a worthy rival to the airlines for passengers from Scotland and the north-east of England.
People in the east midlands may also feel that without electrification they cannot plug into the channel tunnel network. It is true that in 1993 the range of transport options for travellers all over Britain will be widened with the opening of the channel tunnel—another project introduced and supported by the Government. It is important, however, not to overestimate the importance of the tunnel. It will be just one additional route linking


Britain and Europe. Although it will offer new opportunities, particularly for freight transport by rail, it will not supersede the other links such as planes and ferries which will continue to operate and it may well be that air travel continues to be the preferred option for many passengers from beyond London, particularly those travelling on business, for whom time is the crucial factor.
British Rail is required by section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 to operate its international services on a proper commercial basis. It can therefore plan services only on the basis of demand that has been demonstrated through market research. It would not make sense for BR to put on speculative services simply in the hope that the market will grow. Its initial plans for channel tunnel services were set out in its section 40 plan last December.
British Rail's channel tunnel day-passenger trains have to run on the electrified network, so there are no current proposals to run such services on the midland main line. It is for British Rail to decide the best means of traction on any line in the first instance. It is unlikely, as far as the midland main line is concerned, that the very large costs of electrification could be commercially justified at present by cost savings or by increased revenue from fares. British Rail does not believe that the additional international traffic alone would tilt the balance in favour of electrification where no sound case otherwise exists.
But I wish to emphasise that the midlands have not been overlooked by BR in its future plans. Excellent interchange connections from the midlands are planned as part of the King's Cross development which is currently the subject of a Bill before the House. The international trains are expected to call at Newark and Peterborough on the east coast main line and at Milton Keynes on the west coast main line, and there are plans for trains from Nottingham, Lincoln, Grimsby and Northampton to connect with those stops.
British Rail will be keeping under review its plans both up to the opening of the tunnel and thereafter. It will welcome an input from local businesses and authorities so that it can formulate an accurate assessment of the developing demand for its services. In view of its commercial remit, however, it can consider proposals for further services only where a viable demand can be demonstrated.
International freight trains will also be able to operate on non-electrified lines. British Rail expects the midlands to account for some 18 per cent. of channel tunnel freight. It is also considering options for regional freight terminals in the midlands and negotiations are continuing about possible locations.
As I said, there has been considerable investment by British Rail in the midland main line, which will continue. Further investment schemes for terminals, track and signalling on the line are being developed by British Rail. I think that we can expect to see further upgrades of track to increase line speed and reduce journey time. The extremely successful current timetable will be continued in May 1991 and there will continue to be focused route management and work to identify potential speed improvements.
I am keen to see positive planning by British Rail for further improvements to the midland main line, which I frequently use. Intercity expects to take key decisions about the longer-term future of the line over the next two or three years. It would be premature to bring that forward, since the rolling stock on the line will not need replacement until early next century, and there are clear constraints on the resources available to British Rail.
It is a question not just of money, but, equally important, of manpower and other resources. British Rail must put its spending into an order of priorities. There are lines where the service is not as good as it is on the midland main line, and those are the lines where British Rail must invest first. British Rail highly values the midland main line and is favourably disposed to improving it. That is shown in its investment record. I would expect British Rail to be able to make a commercial case for investing in new rolling stock—either electric or diesel—later in the decade. We must wait for those proposals and plans to come forward.
I hope that I have demonstrated the keen way in which British Rail has invested in the line and created a better service. I believe that passengers using the service are much more satisfied with it than they were a few years ago. I want to see the various services continue to improve, and I am sure that they will.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to One o'clock.